United We Stand - uwsboard.com

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

HokieHam wrote:.

Arming teachers would be a disaster

Makes sense to most Republicans . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well ignoramus, you had to disarm them in the 80s and 90s as they've been armed the majority of the time since we created public schools to begin with. But that was another time when we didn't have people like you and Nolan that need instruction to not eat Tide pods.

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

HokieHam wrote:.

Arming teachers would be a disaster

Makes sense to most Republicans . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well ignoramus, you had to disarm them in the 80s and 90s as they've been armed the majority of the time since we created public schools to begin with. But that was another time when we didn't have people like you and Nolan that need instruction to not eat Tide pods.

I don’t think numerical hokie is an ignoramus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

133743Hokie wrote:

HokieHam wrote:.

Arming teachers would be a disaster

Makes sense to most Republicans . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well ignoramus, you had to disarm them in the 80s and 90s as they've been armed the majority of the time since we created public schools to begin with. But that was another time when we didn't have people like you and Nolan that need instruction to not eat Tide pods.

I don’t think numerical hokie is an ignoramus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say he was ...

ip_law-hokie wrote: He’s the one that said arming teachers is a horrible idea. Lecture him, neck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes sense to most Republicans . . .

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: He’s the one that said arming teachers is a horrible idea. Lecture him, neck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes sense to most Republicans . . .

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: He’s the one that said arming teachers is a horrible idea. Lecture him, neck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes sense to most Republicans . . .

Doesn’t arming teachers make sense to most Republicans? Kiss my ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: He’s the one that said arming teachers is a horrible idea. Lecture him, neck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes sense to most Republicans . . .

Doesn’t arming teachers make sense to most Republicans? Kiss my ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it makes sense to people with common sense. That's part of why we have a 2nd amendment to begin with. These mass shootings are happening in your utopian gun free zones, that's obviously not effective. But somehow or another being sitting ducks makes the most sense to you. "oh I know, we'll travel to the land of Make Believe where there are no guns or bad guys and we can listen to John Lennon albums together, Imagine!".

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote: He’s the one that said arming teachers is a horrible idea. Lecture him, neck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes sense to most Republicans . . .

Doesn’t arming teachers make sense to most Republicans? Kiss my ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it makes sense to people with common sense. That's part of why we have a 2nd amendment to begin with. These mass shootings are happening in your utopian gun free zones, that's obviously not effective. But somehow or another being sitting ducks makes the most sense to you. "oh I know, we'll travel to the land of Make Believe where there are no guns or bad guys and we can listen to John Lennon albums together, Imagine!".

So what is your problem with me, Buck?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The documents, first revealed by The Associated Press, were provided by a psychological assessment service initiated by Cruz's mother called Henderson Behavioral Health. The documents showed a high school resource officer who was also a sheriff's deputy and two school counselors recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be committed for mental evaluation under Florida's Baker Act. That law allows for involuntary commitment for mental health examination for at least three days.

Such an involuntary commitment also would have been a high obstacle if not a complete barrier to legally obtaining a firearm, such as the AR-15 rifle used in the Stoneman Douglas massacre on Feb. 14, authorities said.

There is no evidence Cruz was ever committed. Coincidentally, the school resource officer who recommended that Cruz be "Baker Acted" was Scot Peterson — the same Broward Sheriff's Office deputy who resigned amid accusations he failed to respond to the shooting by staying outside the building where the killings occurred.

David S. Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, said that an involuntary commitment would have been a huge red flag had Cruz attempted to buy a firearm legally.

"If he had lied, hopefully the verification of the form would have pulled up the commitment paperwork," Weinstein said.

The documents did not say why Cruz was not committed under the Baker Act or whether he may not have qualified for other reasons. The law allows a law enforcement officer such as Peterson to initiate commitment under the Baker Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/18/so ... -show.html

USN_Hokie wrote:Oh look, this is what USN_Hokie was saying from the #$&%#@ beginning. But because they didn't follow through with the laws we have in place, suddenly more laws are needed. Nope, GFY.

The documents, first revealed by The Associated Press, were provided by a psychological assessment service initiated by Cruz's mother called Henderson Behavioral Health. The documents showed a high school resource officer who was also a sheriff's deputy and two school counselors recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be committed for mental evaluation under Florida's Baker Act. That law allows for involuntary commitment for mental health examination for at least three days.

Such an involuntary commitment also would have been a high obstacle if not a complete barrier to legally obtaining a firearm, such as the AR-15 rifle used in the Stoneman Douglas massacre on Feb. 14, authorities said.

There is no evidence Cruz was ever committed. Coincidentally, the school resource officer who recommended that Cruz be "Baker Acted" was Scot Peterson — the same Broward Sheriff's Office deputy who resigned amid accusations he failed to respond to the shooting by staying outside the building where the killings occurred.

David S. Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, said that an involuntary commitment would have been a huge red flag had Cruz attempted to buy a firearm legally.

"If he had lied, hopefully the verification of the form would have pulled up the commitment paperwork," Weinstein said.

The documents did not say why Cruz was not committed under the Baker Act or whether he may not have qualified for other reasons. The law allows a law enforcement officer such as Peterson to initiate commitment under the Baker Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/18/so ... -show.html

USN_Hokie wrote:Oh look, this is what USN_Hokie was saying from the #$&%#@ beginning. But because they didn't follow through with the laws we have in place, suddenly more laws are needed. Nope, GFY.

The documents, first revealed by The Associated Press, were provided by a psychological assessment service initiated by Cruz's mother called Henderson Behavioral Health. The documents showed a high school resource officer who was also a sheriff's deputy and two school counselors recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be committed for mental evaluation under Florida's Baker Act. That law allows for involuntary commitment for mental health examination for at least three days.

Such an involuntary commitment also would have been a high obstacle if not a complete barrier to legally obtaining a firearm, such as the AR-15 rifle used in the Stoneman Douglas massacre on Feb. 14, authorities said.

There is no evidence Cruz was ever committed. Coincidentally, the school resource officer who recommended that Cruz be "Baker Acted" was Scot Peterson — the same Broward Sheriff's Office deputy who resigned amid accusations he failed to respond to the shooting by staying outside the building where the killings occurred.

David S. Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, said that an involuntary commitment would have been a huge red flag had Cruz attempted to buy a firearm legally.

"If he had lied, hopefully the verification of the form would have pulled up the commitment paperwork," Weinstein said.

The documents did not say why Cruz was not committed under the Baker Act or whether he may not have qualified for other reasons. The law allows a law enforcement officer such as Peterson to initiate commitment under the Baker Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/18/so ... -show.html

RiverguyVT wrote:Most teachers I know personally have no business being anywhere near a gun.

ElbertoHokie wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:Most teachers I know personally have no business being anywhere near a gun.

This. Mother was a teacher and she'd quit before she was asked to do such a thing.

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:Most teachers I know personally have no business being anywhere near a gun.

This. Mother was a teacher and she'd quit before she was asked to do such a thing.

wow, love the fake news.... The proposal is for those teachers THAT ARE COMFORTABLE WITH FIREARMS AND WOULD AGREE TO GO THRU SERIOUS TRAINING AND EVALUATION... not one teacher will be required to participate, it is up to the teacher to volunteer for this so you mom would be fine as she would NEVER be asked to participate. SHE WOULD HAVE TO WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND THEN GO THRU TRAINING AND EVALUATION before given the right to conceal carry in school.

But yes, the best plan is to hope humans that want to murder random folks don't pick the school rather than try and have more defense at the location..... we should do this at airports and other public events also, I wonder why we don't.

Stat I heard this weekend, EVERY DAY in the USA 9 people die from distracted drivers......so every two days you have a parkland incident.... but lets take the rights away from lawful people, how does that make sense?

ElbertoHokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:Most teachers I know personally have no business being anywhere near a gun.

This. Mother was a teacher and she'd quit before she was asked to do such a thing.

wow, love the fake news.... The proposal is for those teachers THAT ARE COMFORTABLE WITH FIREARMS AND WOULD AGREE TO GO THRU SERIOUS TRAINING AND EVALUATION... not one teacher will be required to participate, it is up to the teacher to volunteer for this so you mom would be fine as she would NEVER be asked to participate. SHE WOULD HAVE TO WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND THEN GO THRU TRAINING AND EVALUATION before given the right to conceal carry in school.

But yes, the best plan is to hope humans that want to murder random folks don't pick the school rather than try and have more defense at the location..... we should do this at airports and other public events also, I wonder why we don't.

Stat I heard this weekend, EVERY DAY in the USA 9 people die from distracted drivers......so every two days you have a parkland incident.... but lets take the rights away from lawful people, how does that make sense?

Do you have to have a take a test, be evaluated, and own insurance to be legally allowed to drive in the USA?

ElbertoHokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:Most teachers I know personally have no business being anywhere near a gun.

This. Mother was a teacher and she'd quit before she was asked to do such a thing.

wow, love the fake news.... The proposal is for those teachers THAT ARE COMFORTABLE WITH FIREARMS AND WOULD AGREE TO GO THRU SERIOUS TRAINING AND EVALUATION... not one teacher will be required to participate, it is up to the teacher to volunteer for this so you mom would be fine as she would NEVER be asked to participate. SHE WOULD HAVE TO WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND THEN GO THRU TRAINING AND EVALUATION before given the right to conceal carry in school.

But yes, the best plan is to hope humans that want to murder random folks don't pick the school rather than try and have more defense at the location..... we should do this at airports and other public events also, I wonder why we don't.

Stat I heard this weekend, EVERY DAY in the USA 9 people die from distracted drivers......so every two days you have a parkland incident.... but lets take the rights away from lawful people, how does that make sense?

Do you have to have a take a test, be evaluated, and own insurance to be legally allowed to drive in the USA?

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:Most teachers I know personally have no business being anywhere near a gun.

This. Mother was a teacher and she'd quit before she was asked to do such a thing.

wow, love the fake news.... The proposal is for those teachers THAT ARE COMFORTABLE WITH FIREARMS AND WOULD AGREE TO GO THRU SERIOUS TRAINING AND EVALUATION... not one teacher will be required to participate, it is up to the teacher to volunteer for this so you mom would be fine as she would NEVER be asked to participate. SHE WOULD HAVE TO WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND THEN GO THRU TRAINING AND EVALUATION before given the right to conceal carry in school.

But yes, the best plan is to hope humans that want to murder random folks don't pick the school rather than try and have more defense at the location..... we should do this at airports and other public events also, I wonder why we don't.

Stat I heard this weekend, EVERY DAY in the USA 9 people die from distracted drivers......so every two days you have a parkland incident.... but lets take the rights away from lawful people, how does that make sense?

Do you have to have a take a test, be evaluated, and own insurance to be legally allowed to drive in the USA?

Is driving a car a constitutional amendment? FYI, you have to get a permit to buy a firearm and pass a background check and yes for concealed carry you have to pass a test and be certified...next

quick question, what is the insurance for if you purchase a firearm, for the firearm itself or are you talking liability. Since unless you are a criminal your use of the weapon is in self defense what exactly is the insurance for?

ElbertoHokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

cwtcr hokie wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

RiverguyVT wrote:Most teachers I know personally have no business being anywhere near a gun.

This. Mother was a teacher and she'd quit before she was asked to do such a thing.

wow, love the fake news.... The proposal is for those teachers THAT ARE COMFORTABLE WITH FIREARMS AND WOULD AGREE TO GO THRU SERIOUS TRAINING AND EVALUATION... not one teacher will be required to participate, it is up to the teacher to volunteer for this so you mom would be fine as she would NEVER be asked to participate. SHE WOULD HAVE TO WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND THEN GO THRU TRAINING AND EVALUATION before given the right to conceal carry in school.

But yes, the best plan is to hope humans that want to murder random folks don't pick the school rather than try and have more defense at the location..... we should do this at airports and other public events also, I wonder why we don't.

Stat I heard this weekend, EVERY DAY in the USA 9 people die from distracted drivers......so every two days you have a parkland incident.... but lets take the rights away from lawful people, how does that make sense?

Do you have to have a take a test, be evaluated, and own insurance to be legally allowed to drive in the USA?

Is driving a car a constitutional amendment? FYI, you have to get a permit to buy a firearm and pass a background check and yes for concealed carry you have to pass a test and be certified...next

quick question, what is the insurance for if you purchase a firearm, for the firearm itself or are you talking liability. Since unless you are a criminal your use of the weapon is in self defense what exactly is the insurance for?

And since people can do things illegally, why even try and regulate? Drugs should be legal, driving shouldn't be regulated along with owning a firearm. The argument that we shouldn't do something because some people might try to circumvent it is tired.

I agree AG. I support an amendment to the constitution to "clarify" the 2nd amendment and make it damn harder to own a firearm. You should have to earn it.

awesome guy wrote:
I'm glad your POV is fringe. It's to claim to both support the 2nd amendment as well as end it.

ElbertoHokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:
I'm glad your POV is fringe. It's to claim to both support the 2nd amendment as well as end it.

Hey I cut to the chase. As the courts have currently defined the 2A it will be damn near impossible to craft a law that has any real effect. Thus you need an amendment. Right now, that opinion may be fringe. We'll see what a few decades decides.

At some point in time slavery was legal along with the 3/5ths compromise and women couldn't vote. It's not like there isn't precedent for altering the document.

awesome guy wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:
I'm glad your POV is fringe. It's to claim to both support the 2nd amendment as well as end it.

Hey I cut to the chase. As the courts have currently defined the 2A it will be damn near impossible to craft a law that has any real effect. Thus you need an amendment. Right now, that opinion may be fringe. We'll see what a few decades decides.

At some point in time slavery was legal along with the 3/5ths compromise and women couldn't vote. It's not like there isn't precedent for altering the document.

Just admit you're anti-second amendment then instead of presenting yourself as a supporter of it.

ElbertoHokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:
I'm glad your POV is fringe. It's to claim to both support the 2nd amendment as well as end it.

Hey I cut to the chase. As the courts have currently defined the 2A it will be damn near impossible to craft a law that has any real effect. Thus you need an amendment. Right now, that opinion may be fringe. We'll see what a few decades decides.

At some point in time slavery was legal along with the 3/5ths compromise and women couldn't vote. It's not like there isn't precedent for altering the document.

Just admit you're anti-second amendment then instead of presenting yourself as a supporter of it.

I own guns and want to continue. I want it to be harder to buy guns with training required and waiting periods. I'd also like for every illegal entity and organization on earth to not acquire their guns in the USA due to the ease at which they're purchased whether legally or illegally.

So I really just strongly believe in the "well-regulated" part of the 2A. The part you guys aren't big fans of.

133743Hokie wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Oh look, this is what USN_Hokie was saying from the #$&%#@ beginning. But because they didn't follow through with the laws we have in place, suddenly more laws are needed. Nope, GFY.

The documents, first revealed by The Associated Press, were provided by a psychological assessment service initiated by Cruz's mother called Henderson Behavioral Health. The documents showed a high school resource officer who was also a sheriff's deputy and two school counselors recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be committed for mental evaluation under Florida's Baker Act. That law allows for involuntary commitment for mental health examination for at least three days.

Such an involuntary commitment also would have been a high obstacle if not a complete barrier to legally obtaining a firearm, such as the AR-15 rifle used in the Stoneman Douglas massacre on Feb. 14, authorities said.

There is no evidence Cruz was ever committed. Coincidentally, the school resource officer who recommended that Cruz be "Baker Acted" was Scot Peterson — the same Broward Sheriff's Office deputy who resigned amid accusations he failed to respond to the shooting by staying outside the building where the killings occurred.

David S. Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor, said that an involuntary commitment would have been a huge red flag had Cruz attempted to buy a firearm legally.

"If he had lied, hopefully the verification of the form would have pulled up the commitment paperwork," Weinstein said.

The documents did not say why Cruz was not committed under the Baker Act or whether he may not have qualified for other reasons. The law allows a law enforcement officer such as Peterson to initiate commitment under the Baker Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/18/so ... -show.html

Yep, the commitment you so love to tout. And why it is so difficult to actually implement. Which is why the GVRO is gaining such steam nationally. It would actually be effective.

ElbertoHokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:
I'm glad your POV is fringe. It's to claim to both support the 2nd amendment as well as end it.

Hey I cut to the chase. As the courts have currently defined the 2A it will be damn near impossible to craft a law that has any real effect. Thus you need an amendment. Right now, that opinion may be fringe. We'll see what a few decades decides.

At some point in time slavery was legal along with the 3/5ths compromise and women couldn't vote. It's not like there isn't precedent for altering the document.