You may well support eh 2nd amendment, but you have never seemed to support its use.

You are correct that any loss of life could be viewed as a tragedy. This time it is hard to feel bad about a large number of people not being murdered.

I realize that as always you never want to discuss an actual issue, and are much more happy dealing with some side issue of semantics.

And if we take out the phrase averted tragedy we still have an issue to discuss.

One side wants to take away the guns of law abiding citizens. The other side wants people who fit in society and follow the rules to be able to defend themselves.

Try to imagine if there had been an armed teacher at Columbine. Just one teacher who could stop this.

Try to imagine if someone had been able to reach the kids at Columbine before they ever went on their rampage. Try to imagine if their parents had never met. Try to imagine if instead of plotting revenge they'd channeled their energies into building a time machine to go back and kill history's greatest monster, Rutherford B Hayes.

**** you and your pathetic attempts to turn every single ******* thing in the universe into a vehicle for your ****** Karl Rove impersonation.

So liberals can analyze the facts all they want and decide what would life be like without a Bush, but if Conservatives try to in any way examine issues we are Carl Rove.

Why dont you calm down and quit doing your impersonation of James Carville.

Who the **** mentioned Bush? Your responses might as well be automated at this point, for all the relationship they bear to what anyone else posts.

The point was, and I am only pointing this out for the other readers as I know you know this and are just forcing the issue to try to make a point, is that you claimed that my response was a canned "Carl Rove" like response.

You often attack positions of the right. I ralk about the issue instead of branding you whatever name I can think of.

I just wanted to show you what it is like to try to idscuss issues with a narrow minded indeologue like you!

I like how you put "Carl Rove" in quotes, as though I'm the one incapable of spelling his name properly.

Anyone reading this thread would be wondering why I, or anyone else, would be wasting our time responding to you at all, except for entertainment value.

Actually outside of your little left wing bubble your recent tirades would appear odd and akward. You jumped to the defense of an attempted murderer because I didnt show enough compassion for his death. You go off on an almost pschotic rant when I triesd to make a connection between limiting access to firearms for law abiding civilians and crime. This isnt exactly something I invented.

Again I am a mainstream moderate Conservative. You are an extreme left wing idealogue. No one understands you!

I didn't defend anyone, fucktard. Learn to read.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/20/2010 6:49:00 PM (view original):
And if we take out the phrase averted tragedy we still have an issue to discuss.

One side wants to take away the guns of law abiding citizens. The other side wants people who fit in society and follow the rules to be able to defend themselves.

Try to imagine if there had been an armed teacher at Columbine. Just one teacher who could stop this.

I don't want to take away anyones guns and I'm a liberal dude.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/20/2010 6:49:00 PM (view original):
And if we take out the phrase averted tragedy we still have an issue to discuss.

One side wants to take away the guns of law abiding citizens. The other side wants people who fit in society and follow the rules to be able to defend themselves.

Try to imagine if there had been an armed teacher at Columbine. Just one teacher who could stop this.

You made a statement recently for people to give just 1 example of you being an idiot. Well buster , this statement by you will do fine!

An armed teacher at Columbine? Are you serious? You know want all teachers to be armed? There are so many scenarios that can happen, I don't even want to get into it. I really think you should reconsider your idiotic statement.

Posted by The Taint on 12/22/2010 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/20/2010 6:49:00 PM (view original):
And if we take out the phrase averted tragedy we still have an issue to discuss.

One side wants to take away the guns of law abiding citizens. The other side wants people who fit in society and follow the rules to be able to defend themselves.

Try to imagine if there had been an armed teacher at Columbine. Just one teacher who could stop this.

I don't want to take away anyones guns and I'm a liberal dude.

Neither do I - like Chris Rock says, just make the bullets cost like $5000 each.

Posted by moosep on 12/22/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/20/2010 6:49:00 PM (view original):
And if we take out the phrase averted tragedy we still have an issue to discuss.

One side wants to take away the guns of law abiding citizens. The other side wants people who fit in society and follow the rules to be able to defend themselves.

Try to imagine if there had been an armed teacher at Columbine. Just one teacher who could stop this.

You made a statement recently for people to give just 1 example of you being an idiot. Well buster , this statement by you will do fine!

An armed teacher at Columbine? Are you serious? You know want all teachers to be armed? There are so many scenarios that can happen, I don't even want to get into it. I really think you should reconsider your idiotic statement.

I never said all Teachers armed. I want any teacher that has a carry permit and is comfortable with it to be able to carry a gun to school.

Can you make a scenario where something could go bad? Of course. I can make a bad scenario out of buying a magazine.

The question is....What bad would probably come out of an armed law abiding citizen? How about the good it might bring?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/22/2010 4:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moosep on 12/22/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/20/2010 6:49:00 PM (view original):
And if we take out the phrase averted tragedy we still have an issue to discuss.

One side wants to take away the guns of law abiding citizens. The other side wants people who fit in society and follow the rules to be able to defend themselves.

Try to imagine if there had been an armed teacher at Columbine. Just one teacher who could stop this.

You made a statement recently for people to give just 1 example of you being an idiot. Well buster , this statement by you will do fine!

An armed teacher at Columbine? Are you serious? You know want all teachers to be armed? There are so many scenarios that can happen, I don't even want to get into it. I really think you should reconsider your idiotic statement.

I never said all Teachers armed. I want any teacher that has a carry permit and is comfortable with it to be able to carry a gun to school.

Can you make a scenario where something could go bad? Of course. I can make a bad scenario out of buying a magazine.

The question is....What bad would probably come out of an armed law abiding citizen? How about the good it might bring?

Well, part of the problem would be some teacher comfortable carrying a gun to school.The other part would be that any school board worth its salt would not allow teachers to carry guns to school. In a nutshell swamp, "Your Nuts"!!!!!!

I find that position nuts.

The fact is that a citizen that passed the CCW permit standards isnt a threat to society for the most part. If he was bothered he could go home and get a gun and come back.

An armed citizen can save lives. From as far back as the Texas University tower sniper armed citizens have saved lives.

If you look at guns as the problem you should ban guns. I look at criminals as the problem!