The NRA needs to do something or step aside

The NRA has been blocking common sense gun laws ever since Sandy Hook school shooting and it needs to stop right now, right now! The NRA needs to listen to the Florida school children and stop trying to defend the status quo, because the NRA's status quo sucks at the moment and I'm happy that President Donald Trump is finally standing up to the NRA.

The NRA wants the age of 18 to be the legal age of gun owners, Donald Trump disagrees, he wants 21, which is fair, why is it that the drinking age is 21 and gun ownership is only 18? Doesn't make sense to me.

The gun show loophole, we need to do something about that and the NRA has done nothing, nothing nothing, not a thing to fix this awful loophole. Donald Trump and the Republican Party is for closing this gun show loophole. Finally.

And Donald Trump had said to politicians not to fear the NRA, yes, don't fear the NRA, oppose them if they make it difficult for common sense gun laws to pass.

These are my other ideas:

1. Panic rooms for schools. We need a room similar to the one in the movie Panic Room. Each floor of the school building has a panic room for students and teachers so they are safe.

2. More security guards in schools.

panic rooms while a great idea in theory are very hard to implement as it not only requires quiet a bit of money it would also require basically tearing down all the schools and rebuilding them just to have enough room for everyone. For a typical school say about 300-500 students you would need a room the size of a auditorium just to fit everyone comfortably. Not only that you need extra room for say equipment such as food, water, cameras, guns if need be, radios/phones, and even bathrooms.

Now for the guard idea I'm all for that I would also say have easily reachable gun locations that can be gotten to in a emergency but otherwise locked up.

@argonvegell:

If I told you I'd give you a billion dollars to spend on the country, I think after doing the math you'd realize we wouldn't have the money to install panic rooms, which from a engineering perspective is ridiculously expensive.

Let's say you really do want to install these panic rooms. Well if I told your the students wouldn't have new textbooks for 5 years and you'd have to let go 2 or 3 teachers per a school, would the panic rooms be worth it?

We definitely need better gun control, 100%. But solutions like these cost a lot of money that people don't understand.

Wow took 3 comments before it went full re...

Sick of hearing that the constitutions equals your rights

No international law are your human rights

Constitution is just your law which should and can be changed as time progresses when it needs be

Harsh language warning.

@asgardianbrony said:

Gun laws, which includes background checks, are necessary because it forbids gun stories from selling guns to people with criminal background, people with domestic abuse complaints, people with mental problems, Donald Trump has addresses this issue of mental illness.

Constitutional rights are not without it's limits, like for the example, the 1st Amendment or Freedom of Speech, you cannot yell fire inside a crowded movie house for example, that would be an abuse of freedom of speech.

I agree with teachers having guns, however, not all teachers, the educator will need to be psychologically evaluated and be trained with a gun to respond to threats like what happened in Florida, and if we going to arm the teachers and the security guards, a panic room is necessary to keep unarmed teachers and students safe, and I do not agree with arming students, I believe there was in incident in a Texas school where the students are allowed to carry guns and a student threatened a teacher, telling him that he was going to shoot him, the teacher resigned shortly thereafter, so no, arming the students is a bad idea.

And also, I agree with banning assault-style rifles in certain states, in states like Oregon, Wyoming, etc, states that have bears and wolves, I agree that assault-style rifles are necessary to hunt and defend yourself, but in places like Florida, Los Angeles, San Francisco, you don't need assault-style rifles.

For me, no matter the cost, protecting our children is worth the cost because our children are worth it, okay, we spend money on protecting the President, our Banks, our Hollywood movie stars, but not on our children, that doesn't sit right for me.

What ever the cost, future school buildings should have panic rooms.

@argonvegell:

How are panic rooms going to prevent someone who is out to cause mayham and gain infamy from driving a Truck into a crowd...

Or Keep people safe from hidden explosives.

Or Keep those inside safe from an attack with something like Chlorine gas....

Or stabbing the armed teacher with a pencil, looting the concealed carry then shooting up the classroom...

You want to hurt the mass murder sprees?

Force the shitty folks in the main stream media to stop showing off the faces of lunatics and giving them the infamy they wanted. Because something something ethics.

@thekillerklok: Nothing is 100%, but I'd rather have my children inside a Panic Room than in the crossfire between armed teachers, security guards and school shooters.

A truck into a crowd? We are talking about school shooters and not truck driving killers.

One of the ideas of the parents of the Florida school victims is to have metal detectors for our schools, so these hidden explosives will be detected.

On the chlorine gas attacks, I'm not an expert on panic rooms, but I believe panic rooms can be made to prevent gases from entering the room.

On the pencil stabbing student, again, there is no solution that is 100%, so someone will die obliviously, but that student will be shot by other armed teachers, the whole point of armed teachers and security guards is to keep the causalities down.

Regardless of if you're in favor of guns or not this is a stupid argument. International law is no more fundamental their their own countrie's constitutions.

Also the ability to protect yourself is a human right. You can argue guns shouldn't be the way to do it but you can't deny that.

If the thread is "re", it started with the OP.

---------------

For the record I'm so far neutral in pro v anti.

Going after guns for mass shooting is treating the symptom and not the problem.

@dernman said:

What do you mean by 'full on re since the OP?'

I'm just assuming that 're' means 'retarded', so what's so retarded about discussing about how to protect our school children in their schools?

A truck into a crowd? We are talking about school shooters and not truck driving killers.

I was referring to mass murders in general... if shooting isn't a viable way to gain infamy Other methods will pop up.

One of the ideas of the parents of the Florida school victims is to have metal detectors for our schools, so these hidden explosives will be detected.

Not going to prevent all attacks but isn't a terrible idea, ultimately useless against someone who premeditates the attack.

On the chlorine gas attacks, I'm not an expert on panic rooms, but I believe panic rooms can be made to prevent gases from entering the room.

but the school would have to be aware of the attack... also that sounds rather expensive.

On the pencil stabbing student, again, there is no solution that is 100%, so someone will die obliviously, but that student will be shot by other armed teachers, the whole point of armed teachers and security guards is to keep the causalities down.

So what happens when someone pushes the armed art teacher just a little to far and she snaps? I have seen more teachers break down in my life then postal carriers...

or what happens when the teacher doesn't have the reactions or the gall necessary to shoot first... sounds like more arms for the psycho.

also in the latest attack there was an armed guard on site... he hid outside.

This sounds expensive and most schools have some freaking pitiful budgets.

What should happen then?

@laflux: Try to make schools less of a miserable hell hole is my proposed "Solution".

Unhappy people do Unhappy things...

I don't think any one person can come up with that solution on their own.

School sucks everywhere. The American education system isn't drastically different to that in other Western nations.

Mentally ill people exist everywhere and the overwhelming majority of them are non-violent. In fact Mentally ill people are more likely to suffer from violent crime than to be the perpetrators. We need to stop using Mental Health as a scapegoat for this type of behaviour, especially since Race and Gender are stronger prevailing factors....

I assumed it meant something else. In which case you should flag the user who first used it as using retarded as a derogatory way is against the rules.

Further more the what you quoted was misworded which is why I edited it before you responded to me.

@thekillerklok:

Solutions aren't 100%, nothing is, but the point is prevention and to keep causalities down.

Again, solutions aren't 100%, we're not psychics, we cannot predict school shooting, all we can do is to try to lower down causalities.

'Rather expenisive'? We spend millions of dollars on protecting the President, our Banks and movie stars, when it comes to defending our next generation, our children are worth the cost.

The selected teachers that will carry guns will need to be psychologically evaluated and be trained with their gun to respond to threats so she doesn't snap on pressure or get cold feet.

That deputy was a coward. That's why we need more security guards on campus, if one guard chickens out, at least will have some guards that will not.

That's a fair point.

I don't think that going only after guns is the answer, and I think going after guns doesn't need to only be about control and restrictions, but also education and awareness.

@dernman said:

Mental health is the problem, President Trump already said this. Now, how to fix America's mental health problems? Well, I'm no doctor, so that problem must be addressed by America's best psychologists.

It's a bigger issue than just school shootings. It's an issue of modern society as a whole. I've read studies that say that when there is something wrong with society these types of things are more likely to happen. We've gone off the rails somewhere.

The country has had guns since it's beginnings and while mass shooting did happen it's not like it is today.

Some of the teachers I've had would actually shoot kids either on accident or on purpose

@kevd4wg said:

That's why Donald Trump said that not all teachers should be armed, only by carefully selected teachers can be armed, these carefully selected teachers will be psychologically evaluated and be trained with their gun to respond to threats.

@argonvegell:

'Rather expenisive'? We spend millions of dollars on protecting the President, our Banks and movie stars, when it comes to defending our next generation, our children are worth the cost.

26,407 public schools in the USA

Let's say we have two armed guards each is payed 30k a year (This is a low number)

1,562,820,000$ a year, on the armed guards.

Now panic rooms... let's go with a magically low with this number and say it takes 50k to outfit a school.

1,320,350,000$

3.2 million teachers in America.

20% of that is about 160,000

100$ lowball for the course cost. (Not taking into account recurrent training range time or ammo.)

16,000,000

Cost of arms?

40 million Minimum could easily be doubled.

for reference the budget of the military is 601 billion.

and let me post something from CNN I can agree with...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/26/arming-americas-teachers-is-a-dumb-idea-says-retired-usaf-officer-commentary.html

Some of the teachers I have had that were somewhat crazy had guns or had guns in the past and were trained to use them. I'm not against guns, but giving teachers guns is a bad idea. If there are more guns in schools it should be with security guards.

They won't do something and they never will.

More importantly, I need my porn. Stop them from preventing porn.....or I might just shoot a school up

@nerise: porn is sinful

That would require for them to admit that they are not an organisation arguing for the rights of gun-owners but a front for the weapons-industry and the real objective is to sell as many weapons as possible.

And that wont happen.

If that were true and I'm not saying it is or isn't that would just be the higher echelon. Not the rank and file members.

@argonvegell: how many school shootings are there and what's the death rate from it? How many people die from cancer and other diseases a year?

Choose between putting money towards making a "panic room" or researching other ways to save people.

I'm just letting you know the panic rooms are impractical. You should really research how much this would cost to put a panic room into every classroom.

@asgardianbrony: Why does it matter if it’s unconstitutional? That part of the constitution is outdated and does not account for the weapons we have nowadays that can mow down a crowd of 50 people in a few seconds.

We have amended amendments before, we need to do it now, instead of making our schools into goddamn military bases. The safest countries in the world don’t do that, and we wish to mirror them. Do they have a militarized fort for schools?

Alright lets put it another way then. Panic rooms are actually more dangerous for students. You are basically tell people to enter the hallways when there is a shooter and all gather in one place. That is just asking for a large amounts of casualties. Instead I would suggest that the schools turn the classrooms into panic rooms. This can be done by making the doors and windows bullet proof, making the doors easily barricadable via special locks or have movable furniture near doors. Plus have every single room in the school fitted with a first aid kit and basic survival equipment like say a radio, maybe pepper spray, and a handgun with a single bullet. Would be cheaper and would put the students in less danger as the rooms would be closer and they wouldn't have to traverse the halls to get to a single safe place.

They don't care about the lives of others. They only care about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Comments, posts, and threads like these are so, soooo stupid.

The NRA doesn't manufacture or distribute weapons; the NRA is not the governing body firearms in the US; the NRA is not responsible for background checks and security measures; and most of all, the NRA - or one of its members, for that matter - has never been responsible for a mass school shooting in the US (or a mass shooting, in the US in general, though I could be mistaken). All the NRA is is an 2nd Amendment advocacy group that is composed of US Citizens. Does that mean it does political lobbying? Of course (but no where near as high as people think), but it's not going around, handing out rifles to loons.

So I ask you, wtf can the NRA possibly do? The NRA has been made out to be this boogeyman that is responsible for all gun violence in the US (except when it comes to gang violence, terrorist attacks, general domestic abuse, or just general 1st & 2nd degree murders, of course), when in reality, they don't have ANYWHERE NEAR the power you people think they do.

My God, the utter ineptitude that surrounds this whole debate is insane.

Top 5 Senators That Benefited the Most From NRA Funding

John McCain (R, AZ) – $7.74 million

Richard Burr (R, NC) – $6.99 million

Roy Blunt (R, MO) – $4.55 million

Thom Tillis (R, NC) – $4.42 million

Cory Gardner (R, CO) – $3.88 million

Top 5 Representatives That Benefited the Most From NRA Funding

French Hill (R, AR) – $1.09 million

Ken Buck (R, CO) – $800,544

David Young (R, IA) – $707,662

Mike Simpson, (R, ID) – $385,731

Greg Gianforte (R, MT) – $344,630

http://fortune.com/2018/02/15/nra-contributions-politicians-senators/

Yeah Nah Bruv, I don't see other countries across the world with a Rifle Association getting that level of funds.

The NRA used to be a pretty benign organization focusing on gun safety and education until around the late 70's when it started becoming more political and going more and more towards the right-wing "guns at any cost" philosophy, not surprisingly as they got more and more money from the gun industry and became primarily lobbyists for them. As time passed, their stances have become more crass and self-serving, with total disregard for the lives of people affected by gun crime. Not only that, but they've embraced the far-right-wing gun nuts that think the government is out to get them. Remember that George H.W. Bush resigned from the NRA in 1995 over comments made by Wayne LaPierre (VP of the NRA at the time). Bush said:

"I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.’s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre’s unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list." - GW Bush

At least people are now starting to really see them for what they are... nothing more than a lobbying group for the gun industry that pretends to be in favor of gun owners, but in reality is doing them a grave disservice.

@frogdog: Three things

1. Wtf does this have to do with mass shootings? No mass shooting has been committed by an NRA member. In fact, the vast, vast majority of gun homicides in this country are a) with handguns and b) not in mass shootings. If the NRA was to cease ALL of it's political donations, what on God's Earth would that do to prevent these mass shootings? (or homicide gun deaths in general, since the vast majority of gun death's aren't even mass shootings). Were any of those senators paid millions to shoot up a school? Did any of those congressman use their campaign contributions to fund school shootings???
2. Though that may seem like a lot of money, the NRA doesn't donate nearly as much money compared to other organizations; shoot, it's not even in the top 25 donors in the US from 1989-2014
3. Much of the NRA's donation money comes from contributions from members. You know what will happen if the NRA start's pushing gun regulation????? It will lose a LARGE portion of it's membership. You know what that means? That it won't have money for political lobbying in the first place. Again, as I previously said, the NRA is a organization that is composed of, and supported by regular, pro-second amendment citizens; that's where it's money and and political power comes from. If it starts doing things that its members dislike, it will lose its political power.

The reason why those congressman get so much money is because the NRA has deemed that they are patriots who support the second amendment. However, if the NRA started supporting left wing politicians that push gun regulation, it wouldn't have money to give out in the first place.

I am absolutely for the age being raised to 21. I honestly did not know until this tragedy that I could've purchased a damn AR-15 while still in high school. That is bonkers.

Honestly, the thing I am most against is banning crap. It won't solve anything. It's such a simple idea for such a complicated problem.

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the United States of America, at the City of Washington, the twelfth day of December in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and fourteen and of the independence of the said states the thirty ninth.

BE IT KNOWN,That in pursuance of an act of congress, passed on the 26th day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have Commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Brig called the Prince Neufchatel of the burden of three hundred & Nineteen tons, or thereabouts, owned by John Ordronaux & Peter E. Trevall of the City & State of New York and Joseph Beylle of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania Mounting eighteen carriage guns, and navigated by one hundred & twenty nine men, hereby authorizing Nicholas Millin captain, and William Stetson lieutenant of the said Brig and the other officers and crew thereof, to subdue, seize, and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions, and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns, and appurtenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, together with all the British persons and others who shall be found acting on board, to bring within some port of the United States; and also to retake any vessel, goods, and effects of the people of the United States, which may have been captured by any British armed vessel, in order that proceedings may be had concerning such capture or recapture in due form of law, and as to right and justice shall appertain.

The said Nicholas Millin is further authorized to detain, seize, and take all vessels and effects, to whomsoever belonging, which shall be liable thereto according to the law of nations and the rights of the United States as a power at war, and to bring the same within some port of the United States, in order that due proceedings may be had thereon.

This commission to continue in force during the pleasure of the president of the United States for the time being.

BY THE PRESIDENT James Madison

Jas. Monroe Secretary of State.

Privately own navel Frigate... drafted into service.

So we allow young 18, 19, & 20 year olds to not only handle and gain mastery over a rifle, but also to run into combat risking their lives on foreign soil, but we those same people can't own a gun here in the States? Yep, lots of logic in that line of thinking.

If you're not old enough to handle a rifle, then you're not old enough to serve in the military, period.

Then boiiii do I love sinning

Changing the age requirement to own a gun won't effect anything. There isn't a significant difference in maturity between an 18 year old and a 21 year old, and the vast majority of people treat the drinking age law as more of a suggestion than a rule because of that. The way I see it, if you can join the military and die for your country you should be able to own a personal firearm and drink beer.