In response to:

Bloomberg on Unarmed Sandy Hook Principal: "I Don't Know What A Gun Would Have Done"

AmericanObserver Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:39 PM
If I follow the logic of the right that 'more guns' might have prevented Newton and Columbine and elsewhere, then why not push the argument to 'bigger guns' as well. That is, let's give principles and theater managers bazookas and give local cops anti-aircraft guns on wheels and give mayors nukes! Now, we're REALLY talking sensible prevention of the escalation of senseless violence.
scrow Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 3:10 PM
I don't think "logic" means what you think it means.

a) Those types of weapons aren't necessary to deal with the people responsible for shooting massacres.

b) None of those are arms/sidearms/firearms. Which are defined as rifles and pistols. The Constitution (and the ruling in Emerson) permits private citizens the right to bear "arms." The intent isn't to exceed the Constitution: only to make sure that it is followed and the right of the citizenry to bear arms is maintained.
erick24 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 3:00 PM
Or we could just support Judeo/Christian teachings again. You know, teach morality like in the old days. Oh that's right "wise" men said we can't do that any more. Or admit that there IS evil in the world, and sometimes lethal force is needed to stop it.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:48 PM
you're "reductio ad absurdium" is only making you look irrational. it's Weapons-Grade Stupid.

simple handguns carried concealed is enough defense for school employees to protect the kids against a terrorist or other school shooter.
to suggest "arming children" or having bazookas,SAMs,anti-aircraft guns,etc is plainly stupid.Especially "nukes". I should not have to explain why.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 3:02 PM
IOW,the reasons for not having such powerful weaponry for this task is plainly apparent to most rational people,thus need not be explained.

Perhaps YOU should tell us why YOU chose those weapons for this task. that would be enlightening and entertaining.
marshallbrinson Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:48 PM
NO Reason to try and explain the idiocy in your statement. You and I both know if is a stupid statement to start with! Your statement makes about as much sense as Bloombergs about what good it would have done for the Principal to have a firearm! Idiocy is as Idiocy does!
spartacus3344 Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:46 PM
More hysterical over the top nonsense.

That's really all you have, it's boring and stupid and has no place on a thread meant for grown-ups.
rickmcq Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:42 PM
Reductio ad absurdum does not progress a discussion, AO, but nice try.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who politicized the Sandy Hook tragedy within hours last Friday, just wrapped up a press conference announcing new plans to fight gun violence and to counter the National Rifle Association with his own Super PAC. Bloomberg was asked by a reporter to respond to Rep. Louie Gohmert's comments over the weekend that he wished the principal of the school, who died trying to take down shooter Adam Lanza, had a gun. Bloomberg responded by saying, "There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements.....I don't know what the gun would have...