Tomorrow marks the 40th anniversary that no one in their right mind will love to celebrate. 40 years ago, our Government provided the legal cover that has resulted in the killing of the weakest amongst us. Some estimates say up to 55 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade.

Some will claim the law only provided the woman a right to do what she wants with her body. But that is only one side of the issue. What about the right to life of that baby? Why should the exercise of someone's right infringe on another's right to life? I am of the school of thought that "Your right end where mine begins". If only same rule can be applied in this case.

Today, the same Government is trying hard to infringe on our basic rights to protect ourselves. They are riding a wave of sentiments because of the dreadful shooting of some kids in our schools. They don't care about the kids. They only care about their political advantage and expanding the ability of Government to do whatever it wants with limited or ineffective opposition. If they cared about the kids, they will protect them irrespective of their stage of development.

More than guns, abortion has killed a lot more babies. It is the big elephant in the room that everyone has chosen to ignore. Through Roe v Wade, we now have daily killings that number more than the count on 911. This is nothing but genocide of infantile proportion.

More than life, our Government promotes death. This is such a shame.

Uncle Tayo, happy new year oh. Compliments of the past season. Grease to your elbows and goat meat to your egusi soup. I hope the whole family is doing better than well.

Tayo-D:
Tomorrow marks the 40th anniversary that no one in their right mind will love to celebrate. 40 years ago, our Government provided the legal cover that has resulted in the killing of the weakest amongst us. Some estimates say up to 55 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade.

Some will claim the law only provided the woman a right to do what she wants with her body. But that is only one side of the issue. What about the right to life of that baby? Why should the exercise of someone's right infringe on another's right to life? I am of the school of thought that "Your right end where mine begins". If only same rule can be applied in this case.

Today, the same Government is trying hard to infringe on our basic rights to protect ourselves. They are riding a wave of sentiments because of the dreadful shooting of some kids in our schools. They don't care about the kids. They only care about their political advantage and expanding the ability of Government to do whatever it wants with limited or ineffective opposition. If they cared about the kids, they will protect them irrespective of their stage of development.

More than guns, abortion has killed a lot more babies. It is the big elephant in the room that everyone has chosen to ignore. Through Roe v Wade, we now have daily killings that number more than the count on 911. This is nothing but genocide of infantile proportion.

More than life, our Government promotes death. This is such a shame.

Abortion makes me shiver deep in my soul...but uncle Tayo, it is still a woman's choice to make. Govt can only legislate 'morality' to a certain degree - and as long as you have human beings there will be 'sin'. I view it much like many other issues, it is a personal one and they will answer for it.

Dearest JeSoul,

Compliments of the season to you as well. How is family? I trust you are on you way to adding enough arrows to fill your quiver. How is the Oga doing?

I differ with you on the right to abort a baby willy-nilly. If your stance that government should not wade into moral matters is right, then what is the need for laws? Morality and righteousness are the underpinnings of societal laws. In the same way you said abortion is a moral issue, the shooting of those kids too is a moral issue. Why then are they trying to prevent such from happening in the future?

Stealing, killing, rape, incest, ponzi schemes, assault are all moral issues. Perhaps our government should steer clear of laws to eliminate or ban them because they are all a reflection of morality or lack thereof? I don't think you want to go there.

see my people ooooo
dear tayod and dearest jesoul happy new year as we celebrate 4 MORE YRS OF RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP under Mr Obama.

let me give the liberal point of view here

abortion is evil! yes, na me talk am
so is stealing etc and all them rot tayod listed. abortion should be outlawed, but so is assault weapon . . see? here's a compromise for bipartisanship

outlaw abortion, ban assault weapon

what say you tayo

@Pres-elect,

I see we now have a full house of nairaland foreign section's trinity. This always makes for an interesting discussion.

Yes, pres-elect. I would accept your compromise on one condition. That the so-called responsible leader lead by example by first confiscating the guns of his secret service as well as the guns of those guarding his children in school. After all, what is good for the citizens must also be good for the president, right?

we are getting somewhere
i'm not sure the guards protecting his daughters have assault rifles and bushmasters. and when he leaves the white house, i dont think the secret service will follow him with assault rifles.

but in the newly discovered spirit of bipartisanship, i may consider that, if you and your goons friends in congress provide funding to help cater for the millions of unaborted children who will be born to very poor uneducated mostly jobless unmarried women, funding to cover their healthcare, education,etc

what say you bro

@Pres,

What's your definition of assault? What difference does it make to the dead whether they were shot with a machine gun, hand gun or shakabula?

The point is why should his children be protected by gun-totting soldier-ants and you and my kids don't deserve same kind of protection? I am not stupid enough to think that wishing away evil in the world will actually make it go away. Apparently, so does Obama believe, hence the guns that protect his kids and himself.

As for the funding you request from Congress, why don't we just use it to castrate all liberals? It would be cheaper than taking care of their babies.

Tayo-D:
Dearest JeSoul,

Compliments of the season to you as well. How is family? I trust you are on you way to adding enough arrows to fill your quiver. How is the Oga doing?

I differ with you on the right to abort a baby willy-nilly. If your stance that government should not wade into moral matters is right, then what is the need for laws? Morality and righteousness are the underpinnings of societal laws. In the same way you said abortion is a moral issue, the shooting of those kids too is a moral issue. Why then are they trying to prevent such from happening in the future?

Stealing, killing, rape, incest, ponzi schemes, assault are all moral issues. Perhaps our government should steer clear of laws to eliminate or ban them because they are all a reflection of morality or lack thereof? I don't think you want to go there.

Uncle T we thank God oh...unending mercies and unmerited favor has been our portion. The Lord is indeed good.

Now to the matter...

note I said "Govt can only legislate 'morality' to a certain degree" and I think this is one of those degrees.

I approach this much like God's response to the Israelites demand for an earthly king to lead them...God agreed not because it was right, but because of their sinful nature and He wanted them to face the consequences of their actions. Abortion is not right, but I think people should be allowed to make the choice and then face the consequences of their actions.

---

As for the other child on this thread called Prez, a very happy new year to you dude .

@JeSoul,

I approach this much like God's response to the Israelites demand for an earthly king to lead them...God agreed not because it was right, but because of their sinful nature and He wanted them to face the consequences of their actions. Abortion is not right, but I think people should be allowed to make the choice and then face the consequences of their actions.

So why don't we apply the same rule to all other vices as well? Killing, embezzlement etc are not right, but our Government should make laws to encourage their practices because of the clamor for them, right?

Anyway, your analogy to Israel's request for a King is not appropriate. Do you think God would sanction murder if the people desire to practice it? I believe in the principle of God's Good, Acceptable and Perfect Wills. What Israel wanted wasn't God's perfect will but falls under the jurisdiction of His "Acceptable Will". That is the only reason why God would sanction the call for an earthly king like other nations. He would not sanction anything that is evil and against His righteousness.

TayoD
What happened to small govt? Less govt? Keep off private life. The Virginia republicans not only want to control women's bodies, they force them to do trans vagin al. ultrasound . ( I guess somebody wants to see some puss ie )

Let the women be. Keep your handguns. But there has to be some restrictions on assault weapons. Ahaa, I forgot, let the gays and lesbians be too. They are tax payers covered by the constitution. Regardless of how you may feel about them, let them have their rights secured too.

And you Jesoul,
No comment. . . . . . . yet

Tayo-D:
@Pres,
What's your definition of assault? What difference does it make to the dead whether they were shot with a machine gun, hand gun or shakabula?

It's called, damage limitation. Bushmaster = 6 bullets/sec ; shotgun = coc.ckk and fire
A bushmaster can wipe out an entire theater in less than a minute; I'll survive it if the psycho-killer comes with a shotgun.

Tayo-D:

The point is why should his children be protected by gun-totting soldier-ants and you and my kids don't deserve same kind of protection? I am not stupid enough to think that wishing away evil in the world will actually make it go away. Apparently, so does Obama believe, hence the guns that protect his kids and himself.

Those kids are not protected by semi-trained to untrained civilians.
If civilians want to carry the same kind of guns that military men and other trained personnel use, then they should be subject to the same treatment, training, frequent mental check-ups, etc. But will they agree? I guess not.

The democrats support putting trained policemen in schools. I'll be more comfy with that than having a strapped kid sitting next to me.

Those kids are not protected by semi-trained to untrained civilians.
If civilians want to carry the same kind of guns that military men and other trained personnel use, then they should be subject to the same treatment, training, frequent mental check-ups, etc. But will they agree? I guess not.

Word

The democrats support putting trained policemen in schools. I'll be more comfy with that than having a strapped kid sitting next to me.

Word

TayoD
Lets hit another bipartisanship. Let those who want to keep their assault weapons join the military

I swear, if this happens, cowards like Ted Nugent will disappear

Tayo, uncle I dey come oh...time is not on my side today.

And to that boy who is reserving his comment...I reserve my comment.

What happened to small govt? Less govt? Keep off private life.

The role of government is to ensure no one tramples on another's right. If only the same government would keep to its role and ensure those babies, that you are quick to kill have their right to life upheld.

The Virginia republicans not only want to control women's bodies, they force them to do trans vagin al. ultrasound . ( I guess somebody wants to see some puss ie)

Like the ones Clinton saw in the Oval Office?

Let the women be. Keep your handguns. But there has to be some restrictions on assault weapons. Ahaa, I forgot, let the gays and lesbians be too. They are tax payers covered by the constitution. Regardless of how you may feel about them, let them have their rights secured too.

So there is a right to marry? I didn't know that. So should muslims should also be left alone to mary at least 4 wives as encouraged by their Prophet? Or would you restrict their rights to marry several wives as they wish?

Lets hit another bipartisanship. Let those who want to keep their assault weapons join the military

In the same spirit of bipartisanship, should we then agree that only soldiers who are trained to kill be allowed to kill babies? I wonder how many abortions will happen if the women have to face a firing squad with the sole aim of shooting and killing the babies.

It's called, damage limitation. Bushmaster = 6 bullets/sec ; shotgun = coc.ckk and fire
A bushmaster can wipe out an entire theater in less than a minute; I'll survive it if the psycho-killer comes with a shotgun.

I can assure you that no person will go to the theater to shoot anyone if there is a chance that half the people would have be carrying Bushmasters and the other half would have their handguns. The reason the guy went to the theatre is because he knew they were defenseless.

The democrats support putting trained policemen in schools. I'll be more comfy with that than having a strapped kid sitting next to me.

That is not true. For your information, the NRA made this same proposal that was outrightly rejected by the Democrats. This was why the NRA started putting out adverts saying while Obama thinks its a good idea to protect his kids with trained armed men, he doesn't think our children deserve the same sort of protection. Some Republican controlled areas including Arizona have begun to put trained armed men in schools for the kids' protection.

As you can see, it is really the Republicans who are being reasonable here. No one in their right mind would think disarming law abiding citizens is the best way to protect them from the criminals and the insane in our midst. The current proposals being made by these Dems would restrain the law-abiding citizens and limit their abilities to defend themselves.

Tayo-D:
@Pres,

What's your definition of assault? What difference does it make to the dead whether they were shot with a machine gun, hand gun or shakabula?

ROTFLMAO. Its been ages since I heard that slang.

Kay-Dee:


It's called, damage limitation. Bushmaster = 6 bullets/sec ; shotgun = coc.ckk and fire
A bushmaster can wipe out an entire theater in less than a minute; I'll survive it if the psycho-killer comes with a shotgun.



Those kids are not protected by semi-trained to untrained civilians.
If civilians want to carry the same kind of guns that military men and other trained personnel use, then they should be subject to the same treatment, training, frequent mental check-ups, etc. But will they agree? I guess not.

The democrats support putting trained policemen in schools. I'll be more comfy with that than having a strapped kid sitting next to me.

Personally I am in favor slightly tougher gun laws (not gun control) but claims like this is what causes problems. AR-15s, Bushmasters e.t.c are not the same kind of guns the military use (mostly because they are not automatic or sub-automatic, neither are they capable of accepting the caliber of bullets used by the military). It is a little lazy and misinformed to say that simply because they have some cosmetic features (pistol grip, color e.t.c) as military guns that they are the same.

Tayo-D:
I can assure you that no person will go to the theater to shoot anyone if there is a chance that half the people would have be carrying Bushmasters and the other half would have their handguns. The reason the guy went to the theatre is because he knew they were defenseless.

My personal opinion : I don't think psycho killers care a lot about being shot at, they are suicidal and are not scared to die, so knowing that other people in the theater have guns on them won't be a deterrent. Their mission then becomes, kill as many as possible before you get killed. *go down blazing*.

If everyone has to carry a gun, how do we tell the good guys from the bad guy. If it degenerates into a free-for-all, good guys will be shot by other good guys. That's why we have uniformed policemen, that way you can differentiate.

Tayo-D:

That is not true. For your information, the NRA made this same proposal that was outrightly rejected by the Democrats. This was why the NRA started putting out adverts saying while Obama thinks its a good idea to protect his kids with trained armed men, he doesn't think our children deserve the same sort of protection. Some Republican controlled areas including Arizona have begun to put trained armed men in schools for the kids' protection.

As you can see, it is really the Republicans who are being reasonable here. No one in their right mind would think disarming law abiding citizens is the best way to protect them from the criminals and the insane in our midst. The current proposals being made by these Dems would restrain the law-abiding citizens and limit their abilities to defend themselves.

NRA initially proposed arming teachers which a lot of people opposed, then they changed it to 'armed guards'. I don't remember the democrats standing in the way of putting armed policemen or guards in schools. We all know what side targets police funding for budget cuts.

No one is asking for law-abiding citizens to be totally disarmed, it should just be controlled with tougher laws and restrictions. Some weapons have no business being in the hands of untrained civilians. Protect yourself when you're in your home (you don't need a military-style rifle for that) and when you're outdoors, you have the police. If they think their policemen are not good enough they should should try the NPF.

montelik:

Personally I am in favor slightly tougher gun laws (not gun control) but claims like this is what causes problems. AR-15s, Bushmasters e.t.c are not the same kind of guns the military use (mostly because they are not automatic or sub-automatic, neither are they capable of accepting the caliber of bullets used by the military). It is a little lazy and misinformed to say that simply because they have some cosmetic features (pistol grip, color e.t.c) as military guns that they are the same.

They are military-style weapons, they may not be exactly what the military peeps use but they have the same devastating effects and functions, they are designed to kill a lot of people fast.

What do civilians need those for ?

What do civilians need armour piercing rounds for ? To pierce what ? on the streets or in the bush ?

AR-15 and Bushmasters not automatic or semi-auto ? really ? ? ?
Maybe I totally misunderstand the meaning of "automatic".

Roe v Wade was a bizarre decision in so far as the Supreme Court held that the right to abortion was a constitutional right. It's a prime example of judicial law making.

As for gun rights, it's hard to see how the profusion of firearms makes Americans safer when the overwhelming evidence points to fatalities resulting from firearms in the US which far exceed the number of fatalities in other developed countries.

The clinching argument for me is the number of fatalities from gun accidents - 600 in 2010:

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Contrast the above with this telling stat about the total number of fatalities from gun violence in certain developed countries

Compared to other developed countries, no one can come near the US. The following are gun deaths for 2008: Germany - 381, France - 255, Canada - 165, UK - 68, Australia - 65 and Japan - 39.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-ehrlich/uk-gun-ownership-up-deaths-down_b_1209967.html. Effectively, there are so many guns in the US, that firearm fatalities caused by accidents alone exceed in raw numerical terms fatalities in the aforementioned states.

@KayDee,

My personal opinion : I don't think psycho killers care a lot about being shot at, they are suicidal and are not scared to die, so knowing that other people in the theater have guns on them won't be a deterrent. Their mission then becomes, kill as many as possible before you get killed. *go down blazing*.

That is not true. Reports show that many of these psychos put a gun to their own heads as soon as they get wing of an armed person around. They kill themselves ones they hear the Police siren or another shot aimed at them. What gets them to stop is not more defenseless people, but armed ones.

If everyone has to carry a gun, how do we tell the good guys from the bad guy. If it degenerates into a free-for-all, good guys will be shot by other good guys. That's why we have uniformed policemen, that way you can differentiate.

There is no proof that this has ever happened even with the number of guns around. We have more reports of friendly fire amongst the military and Police than in the civilian populace.

NRA initially proposed arming teachers which a lot of people opposed, then they changed it to 'armed guards'. I don't remember the democrats standing in the way of putting armed policemen or guards in schools. We all know what side targets police funding for budget cuts.

Some teachers have begun training with a view to being armed in school. Some States have started to seriously consider that option. The point is that the NRA is making the sensible proposal that you and I agree with. The opposition to this is coming from the Dems, not Reps. Stop propagating the lies that Republicans target Police funding. Instead, take a look at the Democrats. When we call for budget cuts, instead of looking at non-essential services, the Dems are first to cut the Police and Firemen and blame someone else for it. I see you have fallen for those lies.

No one is asking for law-abiding citizens to be totally disarmed, it should just be controlled with tougher laws and restrictions. Some weapons have no business being in the hands of untrained civilians. Protect yourself when you're in your home (you don't need a military-style rifle for that) and when you're outdoors, you have the police. If they think their policemen are not good enough they should should try the NPF.

There are already a lot of laws right now. The problems is that they are not upholding those laws. It's like saying we need more laws against illegal immigration. That is not the case, implement current laws and we won't have issues with illegal immigration.

4_Play,

Is your name "4_Play"meant to be one or two words?

Roe v Wade was a bizarre decision in so far as the Supreme Court held that the right to abortion was a constitutional right. It's a prime example of judicial law making.

That I agree with.

As for gun rights, it's hard to see how the profusion of firearms makes Americans safer when the overwhelming evidence points to fatalities resulting from firearms in the US which far exceed the number of fatalities in other developed countries.

The point here is not about the impact. It's about whether Americans have the right to bear arms for self-protection.

Kay-Dee:


They are military-style weapons, they may not be exactly what the military peeps use but they have the same devastating effects and functions, they are designed to kill a lot of people fast.

What do civilians need those for ?

What do civilians need armour piercing rounds for ? To pierce what ? on the streets or in the bush ?

AR-15 and Bushmasters not automatic or semi-auto ? really ? ? ?
Maybe I totally misunderstand the meaning of "automatic".

Seems you do. There is full automatic and sub automatic (which going by your military style point is what I believe you are referring to as automatic) and semi-automatic which could mean anything from some revolvers, glocks to a rifle (e.g bushmaster).

Tayo-D:


The point here is not about the impact. It's about whether Americans have the right to bear arms for self-protection.

Americans have the right to bear arms. Doesn't mean the should buy bazookas and drones
What is a civilian doing with rocket launchers? Foolish cowards who dodged Vietnam war want to feel tough they go and buy bushmasters, feeling tough.

Abegi

montelik: Seems you do. There is full automatic and sub automatic (which going by your military style point is what I believe you are referring to as automatic) and semi-automatic which could mean anything from some revolvers, glocks to a rifle (e.g bushmaster).

I did not mention automatic or sub-machine (even though civilians can still get permits for full-auto M4s all in the name of 2nd amendment); I said "same kind of guns used by military men and other trained personnel" ; If you have semi-auto AR-15s and AP ammo,that puts you in combat mode IMO. That's what my "military-style" point was all about.

Tayo-D:
@KayDee,
That is not true. Reports show that many of these psychos put a gun to their own heads as soon as they get wing of an armed person around. They kill themselves ones they hear the Police siren or another shot aimed at them. What gets them to stop is not more defenseless people, but armed ones.

It still remains, they are suicidal and not scared to die. In those cases where they turned the gun on themselves, they always knew law enforcement was going to show up, yet they tried to kill as many as they could b4 blowing their own brains out. If they are determined to kill like they always are, they will go for it regardless of if everyone in the mall or theatre is armed. They'll just try and kill as many as possible b4 someone takes them out.

Tayo-D:
@KayDee,
There is no proof that this has ever happened even with the number of guns around. We have more reports of friendly fire amongst the military and Police than in the civilian populace.

There is no proof now because they've never been put in a war-like situation where everyone is strapped and has a reason to want to shoot .
More reports of friendly fire amongst trained military and police ? ; imagine what it would be amongst semi-skilled civilians, even worse.

Tayo-D:
@KayDee,
Some teachers have begun training with a view to being armed in school. Some States have started to seriously consider that option. The point is that the NRA is making the sensible proposal that you and I agree with. The opposition to this is coming from the Dems, not Reps. Stop propagating the lies that Republicans target Police funding. Instead, take a look at the Democrats. When we call for budget cuts, instead of looking at non-essential services, the Dems are first to cut the Police and Firemen and blame someone else for it. I see you have fallen for those lies.

There are already a lot of laws right now. The problems is that they are not upholding those laws. It's like saying we need more laws against illegal immigration. That is not the case, implement current laws and we won't have issues with illegal immigration.

How is it a lie ? It's part of the Ryan budget, Romney openly spoke against teachers, fire fighters and Policemen in his attacks on 'big government'.

Republicans scream - Let's arm teachers & guards and put police in schools and they go behind and cut police funding, eventually leading to less available policemen. - ain't that hypocritical ?

Kay-Dee:


I did not mention automatic or sub-machine (even though civilians can still get permits for full-auto M4s all in the name of 2nd amendment); I said "same kind of guns used by military men and other trained personnel" ; If you have semi-auto AR-15s and AP ammo,that puts you in combat mode IMO. That's what my "military-style" point was all about.

Seems you are making assumption without checking the actual facts. You can't buy a full auto M4 or any full automatic rifles as civilian, its virtually impossible. Gun manufacturers are allowed to make them for the public, and gun dealers are barred from selling or importing them. Its against the law and has been for decades, you would be breaking several laws to get one. Unless you buy old ones manufactured before laws regulating the production were passed and you are a licensed collector (for which you will jump through insane hoops).

Besides almost all guns today are semi-automatic not just AR-15s, which make them all military style by your analysis, am I right?

@Kay_Dee,

It still remains, they are suicidal and not scared to die. In those cases where they turned the gun on themselves, they always knew law enforcement was going to show up, yet they tried to kill as many as they could b4 blowing their own brains out. If they are determined to kill like they always are, they will go for it regardless of if everyone in the mall or theatre is armed. They'll just try and kill as many as possible b4 someone takes them out.

Your despereate attempt to justify your faulty logic is legendary. That these maniacs kill themselves at the first sign of deadly opposition should justify arming law-abiding civilinas, not disarming them. A well-armed civilian populace will always keep the fatalities to the minimum before the cops can get there. On the other hand, maniacs are known to attack places that are known to be unarmed, not armed. That tell you that even in their madness, they are able to discern a mission of no return from others.

There is no proof now because they've never been put in a war-like situation where everyone is strapped and has a reason to want to shoot . More reports of friendly fire amongst trained military and police ? ; imagine what it would be amongst semi-skilled civilians, even worse.

Again, another hypothetical that has no basis in reality. No single time have we experienced a case of friendly fire when civilians have come to defend themselves. If this was the case, it would be all over the news where the media's agenda is to eliminate civilian gun ownership. As for civilians successfully defending themselves, please take a look at this video.
http://www.break.com/index/71-year-old-man-shoots-cafe-robbers-2349328/

How is it a lie ? It's part of the Ryan budget, Romney openly spoke against teachers, fire fighters and Policemen in his attacks on 'big government'

This statement tells me how seriously misinformed you are. Ryan proposed a federal budget. Policemen are paid either through the states, cities or counties. Besides, Ryan's budget didn't cut spending. What it did was slow the rate fo growth of spending. How does that lead to the cuting of essential services?

Republicans scream - Let's arm teachers & guards and put police in schools and they go behind and cut police funding, eventually leading to less available policemen. - ain't that hypocritical?

I want to challenge you to prove this statement. Please point out any city where the Republicans have cut the police force or teachers. From the Federal to the State levels, our government practices what is called "Baseline Budgeting". Budgets don't get cut, Republicans only try (mostly unsuccessfully) to reduce the rate of its growth. The cutting of any budget meant for the police force or public safety only reflects that the city in question values other things higher than public safety. Please understand what is really going on rather than parroting the talking points of the Left.

montelik:
Seems you are making assumption without checking the actual facts. You can't buy a full auto M4 or any full automatic rifles as civilian, its virtually impossible. Gun manufacturers are allowed to make them for the public, and gun dealers are barred from selling or importing them. Its against the law and has been for decades, you would be breaking several laws to get one. Unless you buy old ones manufactured before laws regulating the production were passed and you are a licensed collector (for which you will jump through insane hoops).

I didn't just assume, there 've been arguments about it.
Yeah, the legality of it is arguable, the reason I put it in brackets. I think it's illegal too but people still insist they are legally available to civilians for a fee and a special permit.

montelik:
Besides almost all guns today are semi-automatic not just AR-15s, which make them all military style by your analysis, am I right?

Yes, they will pass when coupled with 30/40 . . . . amour piercing rounds.

Tayo-D:
@Kay_Dee,
Your despereate attempt to justify your faulty logic is legendary. That these maniacs kill themselves at the first sign of deadly opposition should justify arming law-abiding civilinas, not disarming them. A well-armed civilian populace will always keep the fatalities to the minimum before the cops can get there. On the other hand, maniacs are known to attack places that are known to be unarmed, not armed. That tell you that even in their madness, they are able to discern a mission of no return from others.

There's no flaw in my logic. 99% of the time, they know they will end up dead and always want to do maximum damage before going down, not just at the "first sign of deadly force". Their suicidal tendencies transcends the fear being shot at. Columbine shooters had fun shooting at police for almost 1 hour b4 they put themselves out.

Tayo-D:
@Kay_Dee,
Again, another hypothetical that has no basis in reality. No single time have we experienced a case of friendly fire when civilians have come to defend themselves. If this was the case, it would be all over the news where the media's agenda is to eliminate civilian gun ownership. As for civilians successfully defending themselves, please take a look at this video.
http://www.break.com/index/71-year-old-man-shoots-cafe-robbers-2349328/

Lol !! kudos to the papa' but if you're talking about friendly fire, you can't compare this one-man show to the military or police battle field situation where friendly fire mostly happens, this is quite different from the scenario you painted where every civilian has a gun ready to shoot. If i was just walking into that cafe strapped and saw that man running towards me with a gun, I'll probably shoot at him without knowing what's going on.
Well I guess its a different opinion for everyone. But civilians firing shots in all directions in a dark theater or a mall looks like a circular firing squad to me. I wouldn't want to be anywhere close to the scene.

Tayo-D:
@Kay_Dee,
This statement tells me how seriously misinformed you are. Ryan proposed a federal budget. Policemen are paid either through the states, cities or counties. Besides, Ryan's budget didn't cut spending. What it did was slow the rate fo growth of spending. How does that lead to the cuting of essential services?

Yes, his federal budget plan cuts things like federal discretionary funds which helps states hire teachers and police. Without this help from the federal level, states can't hire and that's a cut in the workforce or prevention from growing the police force. Now, to station policemen in schools, you have to add to the already existing numbers right ?

Tayo-D:
@Kay_Dee,
I want to challenge you to prove this statement. Please point out any city where the Republicans have cut the police force or teachers. From the Federal to the State levels, our government practices what is called "Baseline Budgeting". Budgets don't get cut, Republicans only try (mostly unsuccessfully) to reduce the rate of its growth. The cutting of any budget meant for the police force or public safety only reflects that the city in question values other things higher than public safety. Please understand what is really going on rather than parroting the talking points of the Left.

Policemen were laid off in New Jersey in 2010
Detroit, Michigan - half the police force laid off mid last year causing a spike in crime rate.
They've been trying in Ohio, I don't know if they eventually did.


Did Chris Christie not cut or attempt to cut teachers pay in NJ ? Did they not lay off teachers in Pennsylvania recently ?

Chris Cristie even laid off police officers in Camden, NJ.
Camden, the most notorious city in the north east ( debatably in the whole USA if not the whole Western Hemisphere. They say Camden is where people from Newark NJ( another notorious city) go when they want to feel good about themselves.

Camden police chief once said he lost the entire homicide unit and narcotic unit in one fell swoop. This is a city with a very high murder rate

@Kay-Dee and pres-elect,

Of course I can expect you to make false accusations in order to maintain your warped view of events. Chris Christie never laid one Police Officer off. The Police are under the mangament of the city. Camden for one, is actually considering handing over the Police Force to the Counties because they are more effective that way. This is a strategy and management decision that involves laying off the city officers so they can be employed by the counties. Christie has absolutely no hand in that decision.

One thing you have failed to mention that resulted in some of the the lay-off is that the Unions refused to negotiate because they wanted to protect their own interests. That lay-off would not have happened if not for the Union. Time and time again, we see a situation where the Unions would rather let a City or business go bankrupt instead of making comon sense negotiations.