Wanye is out of his mind

[Alaska444]

Being a Utah resident (other than a 3-year stint at school in Colorado) and with kids in school, it's nice to know that when I go visit the school that I don't have to unload and secure whether I'm carrying open or concealed. I don't open carry a whole lot, but often enough that it would make things very inconvenient when I go to anything at the school.

In the area I live, I know for a fact that there are several teachers and administrators in each of the schools that carry all of the time. If you trust your kids to be with the teachers for 6 hours (or more), 5 days a week, 9 months out of the year, for 12 years, I think we can trust most of them with a firearm. There are several licensed instructors that are doing free CFP classes for teachers, administrators, and custodial staff at the schools here.

Every once in a while, you'll have some principal get a wild hair, usually in the more populated areas, and put up a sign that says that firearms are verboten, but it doesn't last very long. No state, county, school-district, or local government agency is allowed to make any laws, rules, or policies that are more restrictive than state law. The big one there is policies, including employment policies for school district employees. They can suggest or request that you don't carry at school, but it can't be a condition of employment.

We have had one mass shooting at trolley square, a shopping mall, several years ago. The mall has the obligatory "no evil, nasty, mean, and scary guns allowed" signs. BTW, they have no force of law in Utah. If you are carrying and someone finds out, you must be asked to leave by someone with the authority to do so. It can't just be some schlub from the Dead Sea Salt Skin Care booth. And only if you refuse to do so will you be charged with trespassing.

I really like living in Utah.

Matt

Very interesting aspect of CCW life in Utah. Your state has already found the solution although it looks like some of these malls are still promoting killing zones. Thankfully even there, it does not have the force of law.

That is a message we need to engage in the discussion. The problem is that the media and the sheeple will never here of the Utah success story.

 

[9MMare]

Dear 9MMare,

Utah already has legal concealed carry in public schools and colleges for lawful permit holders. I can't recall the last time they had a mass shooting in their state. Maybe someone who lives there can shed some light, but we may already have a couple of states that understand the dangers of gun free zones.

That is at no cost to tax payers.

Unfortunately, the simple and easy solution is a politically correct nightmare that the sheople in this nation are not prepared to accept. They are already demonizing the NRA and their comments yesterday. In any case, I haven't heard of any problems in Utah schools because of this policy. That is actually a cost neutral and effective deterrent. In addition, those visiting or volunteering at the school can likewise carry while on these public school grounds.

http://utah-concealed-carry-permit.com/gunsatschool.php

When my 3 year old granddaughter starts school, I wish I could likewise carry and volunteer at her school. So far, Idaho allows you to pick up your kids with your weapon on your person, but you must not get out of the car. That is as far as it goes with public schools here. Hopefully that will change.

Yes, I know about Utah. What is your point? It's not the only state that allows it. I certainly never implied that "anyone" choosing to CC should cost taxpayers $. I support this. Again....what is the point you are trying to make here?

Good luck in ID...up until now, I would have said you would have had a good chance of getting more lenient laws regarding carrying on school property. Now? WHo knows. But I would expect ID to stand strong.

 

[Alaska444]

Yes, I know about Utah. What is your point? It's not the only state that allows it. I certainly never implied that "anyone" choosing to CC should cost taxpayers $. I support this. Again....what is the point you are trying to make here?

Good luck in ID...up until now, I would have said you would have had a good chance of getting more lenient laws regarding carrying on school property. Now? WHo knows. But I would expect ID to stand strong.

Wow, chill out man, I am not your enemy.

The point is obvious, there are cost neutral solutions which I already stated.

 

[9MMare]

Wow, chill out man, I am not your enemy.

The point is obvious, there are cost neutral solutions which I already stated.

Chill out? I'm not wound up. I'm asking why you went into a long post supporting CC for teachers and school staff when I already stated I thought it was a good idea? If you had some other point beyond the obvious?

And we've examined that 'cost neutral solution.' I dont remember anyone against it. You did however, ignore the rest of my post.

That's fine. It doesnt matter if people agree with it or not. It's my opinion, posted as a response to the OP.

And I was sincere in my support of ID and its attitudes towards gun laws. Maybe you should 'chill out' and then you'd be able to read more clearly.

 

[exbrit49]

Wayne's Comments

As an NRA member I was embarrased. His comments were pathetic in all respects. He offered nothing substantial and basically, the speech was a terrible way for the NRA to speak on the issue.
I just hope that he steps down and an elequent speaker with some common sense represents us from here on in.
No need to reply as I expect to catch heck for this but I am entitlted to say how I feel too, and that is LET DOWN! He had almost a week to get something decent put together, but it sounded like something he cobbled up in two minutues, I dont think he did decent job of representing any of us!
The Antis have far more elequence and are making a much better case !

 

[SuperNaut]

As an NRA member I was embarrased. His comments were pathetic in all respects. He offered nothing substantial and basically, the speech was a terrible way for the NRA to speak on the issue.
I just hope that he steps down and an elequent speaker with some common sense represents us from here on in.
No need to reply as I expect to catch heck for this but I am entitlted to say how I feel too, and that is LET DOWN! He had almost a week to get something decent put together, but it sounded like something he cobbled up in two minutues, I dont think he did decent job of representing any of us!
The Antis have far more elequence and are making a much better case !

There is nothing he could have said that would have been right for this situation. I'm thinking that he said the most innocuous thing they could think of.

 

[Squeaky Wheel]

The answer here was obvious--focus on the dangerously insane. The folks who used to be in the rubber room for life.

This is insightful. Wayne's speech (or at least the parts that I saw) did not get this specific. He talked about a national database which could lead to all sorts of nasty unintended consequences. Also, I seem to recall hearing or reading somewhere about Sen. Feinstein saying something like gun owners need to "prove that they're mentally fit" or something along those lines. Great, except that one cannot prove a negative! Brilliant -- perhaps that's part of their overall plan. Show that NO ONE is mentally competent enough to have any guns, and therefore, no one can have any guns.

 

[Squeaky Wheel]

Helping people deal with their anger/mental illness with both spiritual and mental help and some sort of armed security in every school is a great start.

Well said! As odd as it sounds, many people with anger/mental illness could probably benefit a great deal from blasting away safely at a range.

 

[Napalm]

Whoops guess I did say he should kiss my ass. My bad

 

[481]

Whoops guess I did say he should kiss my ass. My bad

Insult is not much of an argument.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Listened to it myself. Reading the comments it appears not everyone has - might be good to refrain from comment until you do.

http://nranews.com/pressconferencereplay.html

My first thought is 30 minutes is way too long for our sound byte culture. Seems like the good guys continue to suffer from cranial rectal inversion.

That said, the message was solid - we use armed guards to protect everything and everyone else, from our money to our politicians - why not give our children the same care? Makes a lot of sense to me.

As far as the knock on video games, movies, music etc. that was a passing shot at the media, painted as the companies who own those industries (not sure that's completely true) basically accusing them of hypocrisy. It was a single short statement not a major theme of the speech.

I don't like it because blaming video games is the same as blaming guns - both are sloppy thinking. I agree it may be a tactic, but I'm not an ends justify the means kind of guy - low road methods.

I approve of the overall tactic of spitting in the eye of the media, but not sure it helps push the 2a cause forward.

The bulk of the speech, was about an effort to have armed security personnel in schools with details about how to do that with minimal financial impact.

For those of you who did not like what was proposed - what are your ideas?

 

[SteelyNirvana]

Why this thread is still going strong and why it hasn't been locked and or deleted is beyond me. Just look at all the bickering between ourselves and insulting the president of about the only organazation that can help our cause. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. As I mentioned last night, do you even realize how ludacris we all look to the anti gun folks that lurk here? If we all cannot come to an agreement and stick to it then how can we ever win the battle against the anti's?

 

[481]

Why this thread is still going strong and why it hasn't been locked and or deleted is beyond me. Just look at all the bickering between ourselves and insulting the president of about the only organazation that can help our cause. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. As I mentioned last night, do you even realize how ludacris we all look to the anti gun folks that lurk here? If we all cannot come to an agreement and stick to it then how can we ever win the battle against the anti's?

I think that a lot of the bickering is caused by the antis that lurk here- they are easy enough to spot and much more active here than you think. Creating dissent is their goal- it shows them what "works" and what doesn't- kind of like taking a car for a test drive.

 

[Rocketmedic]

481, it's not that we're anti-gun. We're just horrified to find that we're being driven by extremists.

 

[Alaska444]

Listened to it myself. Reading the comments it appears not everyone has - might be good to refrain from comment until you do.

http://nranews.com/pressconferencereplay.html

My first thought is 30 minutes is way too long for our sound byte culture. Seems like the good guys continue to suffer from cranial rectal inversion.

That said, the message was solid - we use armed guards to protect everything and everyone else, from our money to our politicians - why not give our children the same care? Makes a lot of sense to me.

As far as the knock on video games, movies, music etc. that was a passing shot at the media, painted as the companies who own those industries (not sure that's completely true) basically accusing them of hypocrisy. It was a single short statement not a major theme of the speech.

I don't like it because blaming video games is the same as blaming guns - both are sloppy thinking. I agree it may be a tactic, but I'm not an ends justify the means kind of guy - low road methods.

I approve of the overall tactic of spitting in the eye of the media, but not sure it helps push the 2a cause forward.

The bulk of the speech, was about an effort to have armed security personnel in schools with details about how to do that with minimal financial impact.

For those of you who did not like what was proposed - what are your ideas?

I think the NRA would have been better off using a spokesperson for the event. He didn't come across well in his speech even though he had a good message. There is a reason most CEO's use spokespeople for important addresses. Just because you know how to run an organization does not mean you are good at communication.

The message of armed guards and real security measures is the answer to these events. Couple that with CCW allowed as they do in Utah and a couple of other states, and I seriously doubt that these cowards will pick on schools any longer. There are still plenty of gun free zones unfortunately.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Agreed - we could do better than Wayne.

But unlike Coke or Pepsi, I'm guessing the "business" may limit the field of candidates!

Wonder how much of it is his ego? Even a pretty face press secretary would have been better.

 

[Alaska444]

Agreed - we could do better than Wayne.

But unlike Coke or Pepsi, I'm guessing the "business" may limit the field of candidates!

Wonder how much of it is his ego? Even a pretty face press secretary would have been better.

The NRA is more of political entity to me in many ways than a true representative of gun owners. They have made political deals in the past that threw us over the cliff. Is he our friend or just an agent provocateur? Hard to say, but I have a lack of trust of him and his organization.

 

[481]

481, it's not that we're anti-gun. We're just horrified to find that we're being driven by extremists.

As I've taken care not to mention anyone specifically, it is interesting to see who jumps into the "hot seat" when it is pulled out.

 

[gc70]

As an NRA member I was embarrased. His comments were pathetic in all respects. He offered nothing substantial and basically, the speech was a terrible way for the NRA to speak on the issue.

What did you want the NRA to say? If you think the NRA's position was pathetic, offer suggestions for improvement.

Why this thread is still going strong and why it hasn't been locked and or deleted is beyond me. ... If we all cannot come to an agreement and stick to it then how can we ever win the battle against the anti's?

There is no way to come to consensus without discussing differences. What do you think we should do?

 

[SteelyNirvana]

IMO what we should do is either be all in and support what the NRA says or not bother to help the cause at all. Those that said they are unhappy with the NRA because they went after violent video games bothers me that there are people like that in our culture. I mean, I thought we were all responsible adults here. To get testy and admit that you play these games and are a gun owner is sending the wrong message in itself. Its not like were talking about sports or board games but games were you injure or kill another human being. No wonder the anti gun crowd thinks were a bunch of nutjobs. IMO, if you want to be considered a mature, responsible gun owner then its time to grow up and let the games be a part of your past when you hadn't quite matured to adulthood.

 

[Warp]

IMO what we should do is either be all in and support what the NRA says or not bother to help the cause at all. Those that said they are unhappy with the NRA because they went after violent video games bothers me that there are people like that in our culture. I mean, I thought we were all responsible adults here. To get testy and admit that you play these games and are a gun owner is sending the wrong message in itself. Its not like were talking about sports or board games but games were you injure or kill another human being. No wonder the anti gun crowd thinks were a bunch of nutjobs. IMO, if you want to be considered a mature, responsible gun owner then its time to grow up and let the games be a part of your past when you hadn't quite matured to adulthood.

I have probably 'killed more pixels on my TV that in some way represent a human being' than anybody else in this thread.

I think it is quite silly to accept the theory that playing 'violent' video games portrays one as a nutjob. Quite silly indeed.

*For the record, I have something like 160,000 kills in one Call of Duty game alone.

Now, should 8 year olds be playing that game? Probably not. Is it the government's job to say they can't? No. Did the NRA say it should be? I don't think so, and I watched the speech twice in its entirety

 

[Highland Ranger]

Not about guns or games - we can probably all agree to that.

I don't think discussing a minor point in a 30 minute speech is useful. Watch the speech - he meant that as a media attack.

We can probably also agree it was misplaced and ineffective.

Its not like were talking about sports or board games but games were you injure or kill another human being.

You've never seen a football game have you?

IMO, if you want to be considered a mature, responsible gun owner then its time to grow up and let the games be a part of your past when you hadn't quite matured to adulthood.

What people do with their private time is their business. And I don't see the connection between that and being mature and responsible.

 

[Rocketmedic]

IMO what we should do is either be all in and support what the NRA says or not bother to help the cause at all. Those that said they are unhappy with the NRA because they went after violent video games bothers me that there are people like that in our culture. I mean, I thought we were all responsible adults here. To get testy and admit that you play these games and are a gun owner is sending the wrong message in itself. Its not like were talking about sports or board games but games were you injure or kill another human being. No wonder the anti gun crowd thinks were a bunch of nutjobs. IMO, if you want to be considered a mature, responsible gun owner then its time to grow up and let the games be a part of your past when you hadn't quite matured to adulthood.

Do you watch war movies? What about Westerns? Do you play computer or video games?

It's art and entertainment, with a dose of training thrown in. If you think entertainment isn't a valid thing to do as an adult, maybe you're one of those tinfoil-hat gun owners that fuels the anti-fun fire.

 

[9MMare]

481, it's not that we're anti-gun. We're just horrified to find that we're being driven by extremists.

Agreed. The emotional knee-jerk reactions that we criticize the anti-gun people of are exposed here as well, albeit on the opposite side of the coin.

We need to project a more cohesive front. Unfortunately, Wayne L's message, while attempting to steer attention away from new gun laws, only added more churn IMO.

 

[Route666]

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not yet, not going to read pages of blah to find out - video games have ratings, if parents are letting their children play games they are not supposed to - well, they may as well let their kids play with a loaded gun, it would be just as responsible. The games industry does the right thing to keep games where they should be, kids playing kids games, adults playing whatever the heck they choose, it's up to the parents to enforce these guidelines in their own homes, as they would be the ones to enforce gun safety in it.