There is a bigger issue here in that internationalist are using every means for what they term a global reset. A global reset means that America becomes a shell of its former self. Obama is an internationalist and he has demonstrated that he can not hide his disdain for America.

The Daily Beast on behalf of progressives makes the ridiculous claim that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect white slave owners from a servile insurrection.

The foundation for the 2nd Amendment is a result of the following historical fact:

James II a catholic was faced with his nation becoming overwhelming Protestant. He tried to use his authority to restrict the rights of Protestants. James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution. The monarchs William III and Mary II created the English Bill of Rights with said right being the right to bear arms.

The founders (colonist) were faced with the same situation from Britain and hence included the 2nd Amendment as they recalled British history and the rationale for the English Bill of Rights.

Progressive seem to ignore history. James II represents the rule of men
whereas the 2nd amendment represents the rule of law.
This nation was founded upon the principle of the rule of law.
We must protect all of our rights

The gun control issue is a red herring perpetrated by progressives

We must not let anyone restrict our rights.

The term "reasonable gun control" is an opening to taking away all rights.

As a citizen of this nation you must choose either to follow the rule of law or to follow the rule of men. In my humble view its a no brainer because when government chooses they usually choose wrong. when government rules its people become subservant.

Again this is all about the bigger plan called global reset and I for one believe in American exceptionalism even if Obama the Terrible does not.

Personal Best Regards:

Already working
 

As you are quite aware, facts mean nothing to liberals. Liberal, juvenile rhetoric and name calling is within their ideological guidelines.

Less control please
 

Dear Guest: Your exactly right. The unfortunate fact is that progressives cannot deal with the reality of evil. So they inveigh against guns instead of what motivates people to use gun to achieve their horribles.

New York City had an excellent best gun control policy. It was called "stop and frisk" which kept guns out of the hands of the people who should not be carrying them "bad guys". But along comes a progressive, actually a marxist and the effective measure is eliminated.

So let's follow the logic
If guns kill people then we need gun control.

Vehicles are used to kill people so lets have vehicle control

Pressure cookers were used to kill people so let's have pressure cooker control

Box cutters were used to kill people so let hav box cutter control

Shoes were used to try and kill people so let's have shoe control

Underwear were used to attempt to kill people so let's have underwear control.

Or we could admit that we have in our midst Islamic terrorists who hate our way of life

Or we could admit that our mental health system is a total disaster and needs to be reworked to help mental health patents and their families

But that requires serious and deep thinking and mostly logical approaches something progressives seem to be lacking these days . and yet they rally for safe spaces.

Personal Best Regards:

Control politicians
 

Little known fact. To date, precisely one person placed on the “no-fly” list has been responsible for the death of an American citizen, and that person is dearly departed Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy.

And he didn't even use a gun, so I guess that rules out the one possibility. Maybe anyone on the "no-fly" list should be banned from purchasing an automobile...:1rotfl:

Now that is just going to ruin the day for some hot air distributing partisan parrots!

And this one will surely cause the ratchet jawing hammering by anti gunners to take pause!!

I think I heard some heads exploding.

Since college and pro sports events are gun free zones, it stands to reason that terrorists will come there and run onto the field and spray the crowds with bullets.

Why not encourage all attendees at college and pro sports events to carry guns and extra ammo to all the events?

Now, what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

Maybe the highlight is not what you intended to say, because it would be the least effective.

Given the suicidal bomber shooter they would more likely plan and do something where the crowds are the greatest and the least immediate threat to them....allowing more time to do more damage.....as a result the tunnels and access ways before, during and after the events are high density with people.

And the obvious density of any section in the stands.

In any event the need for situational awareness is a must. And the need for see something say something to become a real tool for prevention.....appologies are much easier to do than condolences.

Maybe I have not thought out the places where terrorists would get the most victims - as it seems you have.

However, the point still stands. At college and pro sports events, there will be up to 90,000 people in attendance - all in a gun free zone. Wouldn't this be a perfect soft target? Why screen for guns on spectators instead of encouraging everyone to pack their guns and ammo in case of a terrorist attack?

You do realize that the shooting in Oregon did NOT take place in a gun free zone. There were people packing on campus but did not engage the shooter.

The last school shooting in Aurora Colorado also did not take place in a gun free zone as an armed guard was on campus.

These facts fly in the face of the GUN FREE ZONE myth

Do you or anybody else know if the gun packing were even in the vacinity of the shooters??

"...an armed guard was on campus..."? Does anybody know if the armed gurad was in the vacinity of the shotter(s)?

If one can't supply the facts of the matter/situation there is no value added from the multitude of assumptions or guesses about the role played.

Maybe it sounds good to the uninformed!