"Gun Free Zones" around the President! Sign the petition.

[Deleted]

This post is loaded with zero fallacies.

It's funny that people who "deserve" protecting the most are the people who "choose" to put themselves out there as "targets." Yet more people who don't are killed each day and year and those people didn't some how deserve protecting.

The president "chooses" to put his life at risk in order to help and serve those same innocents you're referring to.

He helps millions of people every day.

[coolerz7]

IMO

I really don't know where to start here. To me, this seems like a terrible idea and sounds like a petition that someone created out of bitterness rather than someone actually trying to improve our country through reform and change. Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children and do for the most part, but they aren't completely foolproof as we've recently, unfortunately seen. The problem with a Gun Free Zone is that people willing to break the law and carry a firearm, unnoticed by law enforcement, into one face less resistance if able to put themselves into a position where they can open fire on unarmed civilians. Could you imagine all the nutjobs, who without the threat of secret service gunning them down, would try to sneak a firearm into a rally or convention to shoot down someone who doesn't agree with them politically?

Plus, the logistics alone of having a Gun Free Zone around a moving object would be a nightmare.

[Riidii]

The president "chooses" to put his life at risk in order to help and serve those same innocents you're referring to.

He helps millions of people every day.

What if one of the children is a future President?

[Knight Gil]

Yes, but if you didn't think his life was so important, you wouldn't care that he is a "highly desirable target".

I'm just trying to show how reality works. You are trying too hard to prove a point and embarrassing yourself.

It's funny that people who "deserve" protecting the most are the people who "choose" to put themselves out there as "targets." Yet more people who don't are killed each day and year and those people didn't some how deserve protecting.

I believe every life deserves protection. But obviously there's a big difference between protecting the president of the USA and protecting a school. Different methods are required

As long as the "gun free zone" is a law, people are sure to obey it, that's how laws work right?

Nope. Laws work by being enforced. No Gun-Control advocate believes that by making a law things will solve themselves. Gun-control advocates want laws followed by law enforcement.

[xandiant]

Why don't you make a point about gun-free zones being ineffective, instead of arguing on stupid talking points that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[hakujinbakasama]

Ha ha ha ha ha pro gun logic at it's best
School in middle of nowhere=/= president of the united states
It's just getting embarrassing and sad now.

Why is it so crazy? The concept is exactly the fucking same. Very few people try to go after the President because of known opposition. Why is that hard to understand? People go on mass shootings, statistically in the USA, where there is the least possible resistance.

The left genuinely support this bullshit about "If a law says no, stop, or don't people won't break them" or something as irrational. The USA is too diverse and too lacking in unification for these sorts of things.

---------- Post added 2012-12-27 at 05:28 PM ----------

Why don't you make a point about gun-free zones being ineffective, instead of arguing on stupid talking points that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Because the initial argument is fucking apparent to even a blind monkey and yet the agenda keeps getting pushed even though it has ZERO credibility nor evidential support.

This is an attempt to draw a comparisons using the original logic because when you "argue" with stupid people you HAVE to go to their level.

[Iracor]

I love how the anti-gun people in this thread have realized the point trying to be made by the petition, but are simply choosing to ignore it.

That point being that guns in the hands of trained individuals create a safety net whereas a "gun-free" zone is an entirely ridiculous idea in protecting a specific target.

So rather than supporting gun control, you all support gun education. If someone's gonna own a gun then they should undergo an extensive gun training course that will allow them to properly handle their gun and use it as protection if they ever need to.

[Deleted]

What if one of the children is a future President?

What if the millions of children that the president serves daily are all fully capable of one day becoming president if they put their minds to it?

[Mortai2]

4200 people signed, lol

4200+ plus morons signed! Yes, morons!

I've seen Facebook posts and Tweets about this stuff ever since Sandy Hook. "Why does Obama get to be surrounded by secret service with guns but wants to take guns away from the American people thus destroying the 2nd Amendment" blah blah blah

Aside from not knowing WHERE to begin about how incredibly, remarkably wrong that statement is on so many incredibly, remarkably obvious levels, one cannot truly believe that protecting every American school from every tom-dick-and-harry-yahoo is even remotely equivalent to protecting the POTUS (of which we have a total of one) from every tom-dick-and-harry-yahoo.

It's the capital building of the capital of Derpland. And the best part about all of this? Not only is it my opinion, but it's correct. Because I'm a sane and rational human being.


[Infracted]

[Riidii]

What if the millions of children that the president serves daily are all fully capable of one day becoming president if they put their minds to it?

That wouldn't change just because a certain President is killed.

[Phookah]

Why is it so crazy? The concept is exactly the fucking same. Very few people try to go after the President because of known opposition. Why is that hard to understand? People go on mass shootings, statistically in the USA, where there is the least possible resistance.

The left genuinely support this bullshit about "If a law says no, stop, or don't people won't break them" or something as irrational. The USA is too diverse and too lacking in unification for these sorts of things.

---------- Post added 2012-12-27 at 05:28 PM ----------


Because the initial argument is fucking apparent to even a blind monkey and yet the agenda keeps getting pushed even though it has ZERO credibility nor evidential support.

This is an attempt to draw a comparisons using the original logic because when you "argue" with stupid people you HAVE to go to their level.

And what part is hard to understand to you? We don't think putting a law on it means it will stop forever and ever, but it will make it rarer, harder to do, and generally not as much of an issue. Going by pro-gun logic we might has well not have drunk driving laws, I mean people still get killed by drunk drivers so they clearly aren't working. Oh, same goes for speeding, cause people still speed.... Hmmm, might has well make murder legal too, people still get murdered. If the law doesn't stop it completely then it's useless amirite? All or nothing, the real world doesn't work like that.

[hakujinbakasama]

The president "chooses" to put his life at risk in order to help and serve those same innocents you're referring to.

He helps millions of people every day.

Can you prove this claim? Because I'd love to see it. From what I can tell, the assholes who need the most protection ie Politicians, are the ones who create the mess which endangers them in the first place. I'm pretty sure we could all list a few countries with a few million lives the last few presidents haven't saved.

[Knight Gil]

The left genuinely support this bullshit about "If a law says no, stop, or don't people won't break them" or something as irrational.

Dear sir

Nope. Laws work by being enforced. No Gun-Control advocate believes that by making a law things will solve themselves. Gun-control advocates want laws followed by law enforcement.

I have nothing left to say to you.

I love how the anti-gun people in this thread have realized the point trying to be made by the petition, but are simply choosing to ignore it.

That point being that guns in the hands of trained individuals create a safety net whereas a "gun-free" zone is an entirely ridiculous idea in protecting a specific target.

So rather than supporting gun control, you all support gun education. If someone's gonna own a gun then they should undergo an extensive gun training course that will allow them to properly handle their gun and use it as protection if they ever need to.

I think it's pro-guns who are so desperate to keep their guns that they believe the most retarded arguments they pull out of their ass.

Gun-free zones work where there is gun control. And gun education? You might be "gun educated", but if you're a psycho, you're a psycho with gun training. Not the way to go.

[Phookah]

I love how the anti-gun people in this thread have realized the point trying to be made by the petition, but are simply choosing to ignore it.

That point being that guns in the hands of trained individuals create a safety net whereas a "gun-free" zone is an entirely ridiculous idea in protecting a specific target.

So rather than supporting gun control, you all support gun education. If someone's gonna own a gun then they should undergo an extensive gun training course that will allow them to properly handle their gun and use it as protection if they ever need to.

Don't speak for other people, because you have no idea what they support.
I support gun control, but the more I see this shit on the news, the more I'm leaning towards gun eradication. The amount of mentally challenged people that feel the need to have closest full of handguns is terrifying.

[Riidii]

Gun-free zones work where there is gun control.

Gun-free zones don't work at all actually.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

[Deleted]

even in the UK, (which has some of the most stringent gun controls in europe, (if not the world) we have armed guards outside the doors of number 10
I dont think that you would ever get a "gun free" zone around your President. No matter how many signatures you get.

[Zoldor]

More school shootings than presidential shootings....just saying. Also, the safety of the president really isn't my concern. With great power comes the probability of attack it is something presidential candidates sign up for by choosing to run. Its no different than a running back in the NFL, you take a huge risk in getting hurt just by playing the game. Gun Free zones, yeah that works, because people looking to attack the president are really, super concerned about rules, gun free zones, and generally human life.

[Frozenbeef]

There is a difference between allowing citizens to own guns than allowing military/army/ secret service/ police to own guns...Also I'm sure his bodyguards go under strict training and background checks to be allowed in those positions...

[hakujinbakasama]

And what part is hard to understand to you? We don't think putting a law on it means it will stop forever and ever, but it will make it rarer, harder to do, and generally not as much of an issue. Going by pro-gun logic we might has well not have drunk driving laws, I mean people still get killed by drunk drivers so they clearly aren't working. Oh, same goes for speeding, cause people still speed.... Hmmm, might has well make murder legal too, people still get murdered. If the law doesn't stop it completely then it's useless amirite? All or nothing, the real world doesn't work like that.

It's because you "think" that which is the problem. You have zero support to show that it is the case. Meanwhile, pro-gun people have made attempts at better solutions which have shown through studies to actually promote a better atmosphere and yet that's not good because it doesn't "remove" guns.

You're still using the exact same retort we've heard for countless years on countless subjects. Perhaps what should be addressed is more than just an isolated subject on a much larger picture. We needed to address the Judicial System, the Education System, the Health Care System, the Economy, and several other things. These have great effects on everything you've listed than the punishment for the crime alone.

The biggest call, or what should be at least, isn't that Pro-Gun is against regulation, it's that we're against "unfounded" regulation instead of co-operative regulation. We're also against measures that actually prevent people from having the option of defending themselves.

I have no problem with gun regulation as long as it doesn't limit ones ability to reasonably protect themselves and or family. The issue is that more often than not gun crime in the USA is commit with a Hand Gun, not and "assault rifle" and is done so in inner cities and places of low economical populations. This, nor the last two attacks on guns, have done anything to help that issue. THATS our problem. In the mean time, this new proposal punishes tens of thousands of people who have done nothing wrong and will likely come at a cost people have completely failed to even address.

[Zoldor]

The president "chooses" to put his life at risk in order to help and serve those same innocents you're referring to.

He helps millions of people every day.

Yeah, being president is soley about selfless acts and has little to nothing to do with personal gain or power. Nah, not at all. Not hating Obama, but historically the presidential seat is just as much about personal gain as it is about helping anyone.