Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 34     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,573
Reply with quote  #151 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoiseyGuy
Real - Excuse me while I "fawn" over Woody's excellent reply and come up with a question.  Woody - In your second paragraph are you suggesting that by arming individual citizens we protect ourselves against government tyranny that would tend to take away our original freedoms?  Are you suggesting that "the citizenry" today would ever be strong enough, even with guns, to revolt and face down our government?  How did that work out during the days of fighting for or against Civil Rights when the National Guard was called in?       Frank
PS - Real - In your mind, what is a "great American"?  Do you have a favorite "great American"?  Mine is Thomas Jefferson considering when he lived and what he thought. Ben Franklin, rogue that he was, is another of my favorites.  I also favor Teddy Roosevelt.   



This is the very point of the 2nd amendment. It was the intention of our Founding Fathers that an armed citizenry would stand up to an authoritarian government that would deny the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said "Occasionally the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots, and Tyrants." I think it applies today. While the Liberal Northeast has long ago turned into a quivering plate of jello, desiring that the government guide their daily lives, the vast majority of the country seeks liberty, and would indeed rise against an oppressive government. The 2nd amendment wasn't put into the constitution, as a means to insure that "sportsmen" could go deer hunting, or target shoot. It was designed to insure that the citizens could overthrow an oppressive government. 

Using the National Guard to put down civil unrest is not uncommon, and was done long before the "Civil Rights" conflict. All state guard units are under the control of the Federal Government. The ability of states that disagree with Federal policy that infringes on states rights lack the ability to defend it's citizenry. Now, it is left to the individual citizen to defend states rights, and local control both at the ballot box, but most importantly through the 2nd amendment right to own firearms. If the Federal Government attempts to limit the freedoms of it's citizens, and it becomes an "intolerable" situation, rest assured that not only would citizen soldiers organize in an effort to defend their rights, they would be joined in that struggle by their countrymen and sons and daughters that wear the uniform of our national forces. 


neat link on state and national guard units, and who they answer to.   http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Guard


__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,811
Reply with quote  #152 
This same question came up a month ago and the answer hasn't changed. Look at Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan all "wars" that the U.S. didn't "win" with it's vastly superior firepower. Consider also that many in the military, especially reserve and guard units, wouldn't consent to fighting their fellow citizens in the name of a despotic president. And does anyone think the military would unleash its vast firepower to level NYC, LA, and every city and town in between?

Look at Syria, the bloody mess there as Assad's vastly superior forces are losing their war against civilians who weren't armed at all when the fighting began. Hard to imagine that happening here, but if we end up with officials who break their vow to uphold the constitution of the US, it wouldn't take much to get things started.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #153 
Nice discussion, full of facts and interpretations!!  Informative.  Thanks !     Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,920
Reply with quote  #154 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhoenix
Some say jefferson was a socialist-----

In his turn, when Jefferson became president he instituted what later became known as the spoils system. With his idea of even-handedness, he dismantled the Federalist Party. He fired half of all federal officeholders, the top half. He kept Federalists only in low-level clerical, postal and customs service jobs. Jefferson effectively deprived the Federalists of any chance of rebuilding a power base by excluding them not only from the federal payroll but from political and administrative experience. The Federalists never won another election. Their party died.

Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans became Andrew Jackson's Democrats. They held power, except for a single term, for 60 years. And then it was Abraham Lincoln's turn. His new Republicans were ushered into the White House by the nearly terminally-divisive Civil War. To oppose the governing party again became treason, Lincoln's critics rounded up and incarcerated, the writ of habeas corpus suspended. No Democrat would be elected president for another generation. The GOP of Abraham Lincoln held sway, with only two brief interruptions, for nearly 80 years until Franklin Delano Roosevelt

the point--there was alot of things that went into the constitution and amendments. Most of it came from english laws (common law, magna carta), great laws of peace from native tribes, and already established state laws. The rebellions are said to have influnced the bill of rights. The ability to gather an armed militia was vital in each rebellion. The "bad guys" will always be armed so you had to have armed militia to fight them. without armed militia the rebels would have overrun federal armories and financial insitutions and courts.
The founding fathers fought more than politicians today. They did not agree on most things. Difference is they were fighting wars on american soil vs english, then french indian wars. You were your own security and protection. The founders stopped fighting long enough to fight england then back to politics. Same as now. A tragedy or crisis happens and we come together. As soon as it ends politics are back to normal. We come together for things of national pride (like olympics, vs terrorism or in support of our favorite team). I didn't mention wars since when I served and now there are still a portion of people who take every opportunity to criticize or knock the military. Especially in 70s and 80s. Ungrateful pukes who enjoy the benefits of other people's sacrifices. 

Notice that neither pro nor anti gun advocates mention the wild west times of america when everyone carried guns nor the roaring 20s, prohibition and mobsters when most people carried guns (especially in chicago), making sure newly freed slaves could not own guns in many states and areas, etc. No changes to the amendment then yet regulations and restrictions still existed. Nomatter what laws have been in place to stop firearm sales, alcohol sales in dry counties, sex, or drug sales there has always been someone rich and powerful that worked around it and formed a black market. You have always been able to get sex, firearms, drugs, and alcohol in america since day 1 from the black market. This means nomatter what laws or regulations the "bad guys" will be armed. Most people do not want to get into a firefight nor will they but in other instances it is better to reach for a gun when a knife armed person is approaching you violently than just your wallet. And it is better to reach for your firearm when someone breaks into your home than just call the police and wait for them to get there and write a report of the crime scene with you possibly being part of it. We can all debate what the founding fathers intended to support our argument but the fact is guns came over on the mayflower, this country started with guns, was founded with guns, west was won with guns, and guns are a part of our culture. Guns will never be federal banned but since day 1 of founding there have been states, towns, counties, etc. that banned them in public places, types you could carry, etc. and since it has always been that way it will always stay that way. The shop I got my guns from is one of many guns shops that fuel the fire of "they are trying to take away our guns".....it increases their sales. There has been no proposed legislation asking for ban on all guns nor has any president asked for total ban on guns. They will regulate as they have since day 1 but never take away.



Showing them copy and paste skills.

__________________
I'd Challenge You to A Battle of Wits but I see your Unarmed!!!
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,920
Reply with quote  #155 
Wow. Justifying plagarism. Impressive.
__________________
I'd Challenge You to A Battle of Wits but I see your Unarmed!!!
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,974
Reply with quote  #156 
Arguing with someone who just wants to be an antagonist and not apply their criticism to everyone would be like me arguing with my grandkids about the easter bunny so I won't.

But I will discuss the Superior firepower.
All the wars the usa "didn't win" were on foreign soil and we were fighting for someone else's cause. We were being the world police and we DID NOT control the resources (phone, water, power)
If military members would not attack fellow citizens there are civilians that also would not attack soldiers who are just doing their duty. The military that won't fight would also not fight against their military buddies.
In the past there was never an issue when miltary have been sent to protests, group violence, etc. They aren't sent to kill they are sent to suppress.
Our country as we know it would never be remotely the same and the consitution and everything we have would be thrown out the window if we had a major internal incident. Anything minor there are enough military personell to fly and drive. This isn't in another country so feds cut off water and power to that town or area, have phone service cut to there, no one in or out, park tanks outside and blair loud music and lights, and gas them out if needed. Same way they handle out of control crowds or dig out gang member or hate group hot spots. All non-lethal. Adults may want to tough it out but their kids won't and neither will elderly, sick, many women, etc. ..not like foreign wars but more like the war between the states/civil war when brothers and cousin fought each other.

btw...we are broke yet still spend billions policing the world. We go help countries where the citizens dislikes americans and burn our flag. We send soldiers, equiptment and supplies to other countries with money and resources we don't have to spare. Our creditors don't care that we are trying to be big brother to the world...they want their money. So let them foot the bill for awhile


__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,920
Reply with quote  #157 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhoenix
Arguing with someone who just wants to be an antagonist and not apply their criticism to everyone would be like me arguing with my grandkids about the easter bunny so I won't.

But I will discuss the Superior firepower.
All the wars the usa "didn't win" were on foreign soil and we were fighting for someone else's cause. We were being the world police and we DID NOT control the resources (phone, water, power)
If military members would not attack fellow citizens there are civilians that also would not attack soldiers who are just doing their duty. The military that won't fight would also not fight against their military buddies.
In the past there was never an issue when miltary have been sent to protests, group violence, etc. They aren't sent to kill they are sent to suppress.
Our country as we know it would never be remotely the same and the consitution and everything we have would be thrown out the window if we had a major internal incident. Anything minor there are enough military personell to fly and drive. This isn't in another country so feds cut off water and power to that town or area, have phone service cut to there, no one in or out, park tanks outside and blair loud music and lights, and gas them out if needed. Same way they handle out of control crowds or dig out gang member or hate group hot spots. All non-lethal. Adults may want to tough it out but their kids won't and neither will elderly, sick, many women, etc. ..not like foreign wars but more like the war between the states/civil war when brothers and cousin fought each other.

btw...we are broke yet still spend billions policing the world. We go help countries where the citizens dislikes americans and burn our flag. We send soldiers, equiptment and supplies to other countries with money and resources we don't have to spare. Our creditors don't care that we are trying to be big brother to the world...they want their money. So let them foot the bill for awhile



Thing is do you really know what an antagonist is?
You might want to read some of your long drawn out copy and pasted drivel to determine that answer. Im just not afraid to call you out on it.
BTW: The Easter Bunny does exist.
Like I said. You are much like Stephen A Smith except he gets paid for being ridiculous.

__________________
I'd Challenge You to A Battle of Wits but I see your Unarmed!!!
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,644
Reply with quote  #158 

 


__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Lovemesomesoftball

Registered:
Posts: 5,786
Reply with quote  #159 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhoenix


But I will discuss the Superior firepower.
All the wars the usa "didn't win" were on foreign soil



Not to be an antagonist BUT........

The USA has not lost  one "war"
Wars are declared by Congress. Viet Nam was technically a "conflict" congress never declared "war".......carry on
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,974
Reply with quote  #160 

This was 10 posts before mine and what I was responding to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
This same question came up a month ago and the answer hasn't changed. Look at Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan all "wars" that the U.S. didn't "win" with it's vastly superior firepower.


And no one in this thread stated the USA "Lost" a war.......we simply stated the ones they did not win. And Vietnam was called "Vietnam war". Iraq is called the "Iraq War". A war is a conflict between parties wishing to control certain territories. A formal declaration of war simply states that a condition of war exists between the named parties. Last declaration of war by USA was in WW2 in 1942. All conflicts since then are categortized as wars and all were approved by congress....yet none were declarations of war.


__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
Lovemesomesoftball

Registered:
Posts: 5,786
Reply with quote  #161 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhoenix

This was 10 posts before mine and what I was responding to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
This same question came up a month ago and the answer hasn't changed. Look at Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan all "wars" that the U.S. didn't "win" with it's vastly superior firepower.


And no one in this thread stated the USA "Lost" a war.......we simply stated the ones they did not win. And Vietnam was called "Vietnam war". Iraq is called the "Iraq War". A war is a conflict between parties wishing to control certain territories. A formal declaration of war simply states that a condition of war exists between the named parties. Last declaration of war by USA was in WW2 in 1942. All conflicts since then are categortized as wars and all were approved by congress....yet none were declarations of war.

r

People misuse words "war" happens to be one of many. You wrote  "wars U.S. didn't win" ......I stated "technically" the U.S. has won all their wars and explained why. According to the constitution ....only Congress can declare war.

Congress did not declare war for Viet Nam. Classify it how you want but the constitution did not change in 1962. My reply was tongue and cheek because you and Rocklifter were go back and forth. I just thought in a thread involving "gun control" ....a discussion that often has individuals interpret the 2nd Amendment in the the most conservative manner that it was ironic to read ones liberal interpretation of "Congress must declare war". Until it is remove from the Constitution, I will not refer to Viet Nam as a "conflict" especially in a thread so closely related to 2nd Amendment rights.

I see it this way.....people refer to a person as "bipolar" because they saw them upset. That's fine...but if the discussion was about mental health and the word was used thrown out there as a synonym for somebody the person had an issue with it weakens their argument.  People say "look at that boat" but if the discussion was U.S. Naval policy and procedure the word "ship" is used in the discussion despite millions of people calling vessels "boats"

I stated technically it is a "conflict" if you want to call it a war go ahead.



keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,644
Reply with quote  #162 
I have that feeling that the vivacious vs. loud mouth parable will now be played.
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Lovemesomesoftball

Registered:
Posts: 5,786
Reply with quote  #163 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
I have that feeling that the vivacious vs. loud mouth parable will now be played.


pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,191
Reply with quote  #164 
I actually have no issue with some limits on some types of firearms but the folks pushing this policy need to come clean and admit that it's mostly symbolic and will have little or no effect on violent crime.  Let's think of some of the things that are illegal that don't seem scarce or difficult to accomplish - marijuana, cocaine, drunk driving, bomb-making.

The sad truth is that most of our ills, violent crime included, can mostly be attributed to the moral decline in our society and the increasing persecution of those who practice Christianity.

Also, does anyone think that Hollywood and those who make violent video games share a fair portion of the blame for violent crimes?  Why is Obama solely focused on guns?
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,478
Reply with quote  #165 
It really is about control.....People control....PACs buy our politicians and our Government is, now, buying Americans....I will say, be careful...Loyalty to country does not mean blindly following the Government....
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #166 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
I actually have no issue with some limits on some types of firearms but the folks pushing this policy need to come clean and admit that it's mostly symbolic and will have little or no effect on violent crime. 


pabar - This is my position and they say I'm attacking the 2nd amendment.  Admittedly, some of the arms I would ban from sale may differ from your list but, outside of that, I don't understand the uproar from the gun owners.  I do believe banning some of these weapons will reduce mass shootings, or at least the damage they do, but I can't prove that or be 100% certain.  I'm for 70 MPH instead of 80 MPH as our maximum speed limit but I can't be certain it saves any lives either.  Let me ask, do you think the laws against marijuana reduce the use?  I can tell you it kept me from ever trying it though, I'll admit, I did drink before legal age.  Hard to prove any marijuana law kept anyone from smoking it but I would suggest I just provided some proof.



__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,191
Reply with quote  #167 
Dewey - I'll answer your questions after you answer my questions as to why nobody holds Hollywood or violent game producers accountable and why Obama has a singular focus on gun control.  If you don't want to answer I will.  Obama has too many friends in Hollywood and he is afraid or unwilling to hold their feet to the fire.  Plain and simple.

I'll reiterate my position that limiting these arms will not reduce violent crime, the vast vast majority of it is not associated with mass killings.  For every mass killing I would guess that there are 100 instances of a law-abiding citizen surviving a crime because he or she was armed.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #168 
pabar - I don't know that we aren't holding our culture and our mental illness system partly responsible for these tragedies.  I think they are under review but not sure what we can do in this area.  What are you suggesting we do with regards to movies and games?  I might be right there with you.  We are providing labels on most of these products.  Violent video games have been under pressure for some time now.
__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,191
Reply with quote  #169 
Dewey - I can't think of anything that we are doing to hold movies or games responsibile and the only focus on mental illness is to discuss making it more difficult for the mentally ill to get guns.  Again, the focus is on the guns rather than on the illness itself.

For the games, I've seen a shocking increase in the number of television commercials focused on violent video games.  The commercials themselves are like movie previews.  How about we ban advertising of those games like what was in place for a while with hard liquor?  For that matter, can we ban ED commercials that I have to watch with my daughter during the 49ers game but I digress.

How about if one of our supposed superstar actors came out said I will never again be involved in a movie that features gun violence?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #170 
pabar - I don't know if hard liquor commercials were banned or pressured but I have no problem with looking into these type ads.  I doubt the majority would go along with this idea but who knows?  What do you think about drug laws?  Did they help keep usage down?
__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,725
Reply with quote  #171 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachB25
While I rarely watch Hannity, I did the other night.  The late version since I could not sleep.  (DD called and had a bad day of softball so I couldn't sleep.)  Anyway, they had a young lady who is a shooting champion display different weapons.  She included some of the AR w/pistol grip.  As she said, it makes no sense to make that gun illegal since the grip is cosmetic and does not affect the firing rate or caliber of bullet.  As she went through the various weapons and demonstrated them, she remaked about aspects of each weapon.  She wrapped up by grabbing an semi automatic shotgun.  She stated that the various shooting have had a range of somewhere around 20-25 feet as these "shooters" fired at victims in these recent shootings.  She mentioned that this shotgun is absolutely legal and not on any list to be banned.  Then, she opened fire.

Did anyone see this demonstration?  WOW!

Bottom line the bans have no basis in reason. They are just fluff so the bleating hearts can go on camera and tell everyone how much they are doing to protect us.
They always said if you want protection get a shotgun, don't need accuracy and they do a hell of a lot of damage.
Not to mention Jessie Duff is definitely easy on the eyes.

__________________
#SCOTUS
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,191
Reply with quote  #172 
I do think that there is more alcohol consumption than marijuana use due to legality.  But there is PLENTY of marijuana use so as to make the illegality a joke.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #173 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
  But there is PLENTY of marijuana use so as to make the illegality a joke.


I don't know, you might be right.  That said, I'm afraid making it legal will open up its use.  I wouldn't penalize more than a fine but I do think the "illegal" status reduces usage.

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,725
Reply with quote  #174 
I watched th YouTube clip of the segment.
The evil AR-15 had the smallest impact of any of the weapons shown.
But like Jessie said it has a menacing appearance that plays into the fear mongers tactics.


__________________
#SCOTUS
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,191
Reply with quote  #175 
Dewey slapped me when I made this argument before but it's completely valid.

Gun rights advocates and those wanting to enact stricter gun control laws agree on one thing - neither side wants people to die.

The abortion argument is different.  Those who proclaim to be pro-choice will defend a woman's right to kill her unborn child.

I make this argument to point out the hypocrisy of those on the left who demonize gun owners but completely ignore the tragedy of abortion.

Nuff said.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,644
Reply with quote  #176 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Dewey slapped me when I made this argument before but it's completely valid.

Gun rights advocates and those wanting to enact stricter gun control laws agree on one thing - neither side wants people to die.

The abortion argument is different.  Those who proclaim to be pro-choice will defend a woman's right to kill her unborn child.

I make this argument to point out the hypocrisy of those on the left who demonize gun owners but completely ignore the tragedy of abortion.

Nuff said.


At least you got a response from him.  I got no response from the leftists on this site [dewey did say he doubted 2 cells joined were a child] when I tried to get him to Google vacuum aspiration.  These are fetuses up to 16 weeks old, lot more than 2 cells joined together.  Then woody and fhoenix both provided numbers that 1 million abortions are performed each year in this country.  Why can some see no correlation between bullet riddled children and those sucked from their mothers womb?

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #177 
guys - There are some things I don't favor that I wouldn't pass laws to make illegal.  A woman's right to choose, to a point, should be hers, not mine.

That said, please don't accuse me of not answering questions.  I'm so tired of being ignored, (did you see Grizzly blatantly brush me aside after answering all his/her questions), so if I missed one, please clarify.  However, asking me to look at pictures of abortions, or to read ugly racist comments someone might make, to encourage me to change my position on why something should be legal or not, seems to be far beyond a question.

PS:  pabar, what did I slap you in the face about?

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,191
Reply with quote  #178 
I didn't say slap in the face - I just said slapped as in admonished.  I previously provided a contextual discussion between abortion and gun control and you objected to that line of discussion.  That was the slap.
Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #179 

Kindergartner Suspended Over Bubble Gun Threat

 

A 5-year-old girl was suspended from school earlier this week after she made what the school called a "terrorist threat."

Her weapon of choice? A small, Hello Kitty automatic bubble blower.

The kindergartner, who attends Mount Carmel Area Elementary School in Pennsylvania, caught administrators' attention after suggesting she and a classmate should shoot each other with bubbles.

"I think people know how harmless a bubble is. It doesn't hurt," said Robin Ficker, an attorney for the girl's family. According to Ficker, the girl, whose identity has not been released, didn't even have the bubble gun toy with her at school.

 

The kindergartner was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation during her 10-day suspension, which was later reduced to two days. The evaluation deemed the girl normal and not a threat to others, Ficker said.

The girl's family is considering a lawsuit against the school to get the blemish - all because of bubbles - off their daughter's record.

"The mother has tried to get the girl in another school since this time, and they won't take the little girl because of this mark on her record," Ficker said.

The suspension comes one month after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, which has created a heightened sense of alert at schools across the country.

The Mount Carmel Area School District told ABC News, "We are confident that much of the information supplied to the media may not be consistent with the facts… The Mount Carmel Area School District takes the well-being and safety of students and staff very seriously."

ABC News' Gio Benitez contributed to this report.

YOU GOTTA LOVE THE LEFT!!!!!


__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
vol52

Registered:
Posts: 966
Reply with quote  #180 
Perhaps the fact that it was an automatic rather than a semi-automatic had some bearing on the case.
__________________
Steve Rhodes
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.