Lets concentrate all the Hurt feeling from the past on this thread.


I am sorry for ALL the APP fans who feel hurt by past things....Life sometimes sucks and i know it hurts at the time....lets not get crazy on here either please

I agree with you Philly. It's time to move forward. I see great things next season. Whatever hurt any of us App fans have had over football, basketball or anything related to ASU can't compare to the "HURT" the families are experiencing in Connecticut. We can get over our (ASU) hurt,, but the death of a 6-7 year old family member will hurt forever. Prayers to us, the ASU family, and many prayers to all parties effected in Connecticut.

AppState89 wrote:Whatever hurt any of us App fans have had over football, basketball or anything related to ASU can't compare to the "HURT" the families are experiencing in Connecticut. We can get over our (ASU) hurt,, but the death of a 6-7 year old family member will hurt forever. Prayers to us, the ASU family, and many prayers to all parties effected in Connecticut.

It really puts all of our "troubles" in perspective. I can't imagine the pain they are going through. Friday night I came home and hugged my daughter. Life is too short. Enjoy every minute of it.

Ready to ban assault guns now?

Rekdiver wrote:Ready to ban assault guns now?

No. Why? Ready to ban knives?

I can give you 26 new reasons. How many more do you need?

You can't kill 26 people with a knife. I doubt you could kill two.

Rekdiver wrote:I can give you 26 new reasons. How many more do you need?

I'm my 23 years of law enforcement, I've never seen a gun kill someone. You lay it on a table, it will lay there forever. People kill people, not guns. This argument can go on for the end of time, but in the end, it's always the "people" who do the killing.

AppState89 wrote:

Rekdiver wrote:I can give you 26 new reasons. How many more do you need?

I'm my 23 years of law enforcement, I've never seen a gun kill someone. You lay it on a table, it will lay there forever. People kill people, not guns. This argument can go on for the end of time, but in the end, it's always the "people" who do the killing.

20 years in myself, this is a tragedy that is beyond imagination...But banning guns wont stop it. How about we raise our county taxes and put more Officers in the schools, I wouldnt have a problem paying it, lock the doors right after the first bell goes off, have security checks at entry points, one way in one way out. Tint the windows where u can only see out and not in during the day. Put up a fence with a card-key entry with a speaker manned by a school official with a camera. And set the school up so the police sector car can come in and do his/hers reports from time to time. Yes its come to this. The only way to stop it is to deter it...Politicians can do what they want, Our kids are to precious to worry about money. You can throw politics out the window when bullets start to fly.

App90 wrote:

AppState89 wrote:

Rekdiver wrote:I can give you 26 new reasons. How many more do you need?

I'm my 23 years of law enforcement, I've never seen a gun kill someone. You lay it on a table, it will lay there forever. People kill people, not guns. This argument can go on for the end of time, but in the end, it's always the "people" who do the killing.

20 years in myself, this is a tragedy that is beyond imagination...But banning guns wont stop it. How about we raise our county taxes and put more Officers in the schools, I wouldnt have a problem paying it, lock the doors right after the first bell goes off, have security checks at entry points, one way in one way out. Tint the windows where u can only see out and not in during the day. Put up a fence with a card-key entry with a speaker manned by a school official with a camera. And set the school up so the police sector car can come in and do his/hers reports from time to time. Yes its come to this. The only way to stop it is to deter it...Politicians can do what they want, Our kids are to precious to worry about money. You can throw politics out the window when bullets start to fly.

That's one good way to help solve this problem, but nobody wants to listen to the men and women on the front lines. It's all about what looks good for the politicians so they can get voted in again. You are so correct, "Our kids are to precious to worry about money". Some things you need to spend more money on. This is a good idea instead of sending billions to other countries. SAVE OUR COUNTRY FIRST!!

They recently built a new school where I retired from. Access control at all entrances which can also be controlled at all schools in the county by one button at the county office (immediate lockdown), cameras in all public areas which can be seen on the internet by law enforcement and school personnel, and you have to be buzzed in by the office personel if you don't have a card. Sounds very secure, but the building is entirely glass!

AppAttack wrote:You can't kill 26 people with a knife. I doubt you could kill two.

This is true, however, if someone wanted to kill a large group of people there are more ways than a gun. For example, there are enough materials under the average kitchen sink, when combined, could blow up an entire building.

Tim McVeigh did well without a gun...ready to ban diesel and fertilizer?

The assault style riffle is meant for soldiers or tactical style law enforcement period.this is not for a fifty seven year old woman and twenty year old son.There is no other reason to have this style weapon in your home.

Listen, I've made all the arguments in the past and I used to be a member of the NRA ..."people kill people guns don't......." and every other argument. Keep our hunting rifles, our handguns fine....but there is no longer a reason to have semi automatic assault style rifles in the hands of anyone other than law enforcement and restricted to collectors with an improved set of qualifications. I no longer want to hear about knives and fertilizer and all the other smoke screen arguments. Also there are certain kinds of ammunition that don't need to be made available. And if you are in law enforcement you know that you are outgunned......... We would not need more officers in the field if there were fewer guns. I am not a card carrying slobering liberal but I can't support current gun laws anymore.

mountaineerman wrote:The assault style riffle is meant for soldiers or tactical style law enforcement period.this is not for a fifty seven year old woman and twenty year old son.There is no other reason to have this style weapon in your home.

Exactly right. I am not for a total gun abolishment, but I see zero reason that anyone outside of the military or special police forces to have access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There is a compromise point here, one that will at least make some progress towards eliminating a source of a threat but not swing the pendulum so far in the other direction.

I would love to hear any pro-gun person give me a rational explanation as to why an everyday citizen needs to possess these kinds of weapons. I cannot think of one.

rbarthle17 wrote:

mountaineerman wrote:The assault style riffle is meant for soldiers or tactical style law enforcement period.this is not for a fifty seven year old woman and twenty year old son.There is no other reason to have this style weapon in your home.

Exactly right. I am not for a total gun abolishment, but I see zero reason that anyone outside of the military or special police forces to have access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There is a compromise point here, one that will at least make some progress towards eliminating a source of a threat but not swing the pendulum so far in the other direction.

I would love to hear any pro-gun person give me a rational explanation as to why an everyday citizen needs to possess these kinds of weapons. I cannot think of one.

Needs to be put to a popular vote. 95% of the population is rational enough to know that these type of weapons need to be abolished. It is the loud noises of the very few people that would lose money because of a ban that cause the issue. They hire people to make up arguments for the simple minded people to follow. Those people of course forward emails and post silly pictures on facebook.

First we have to come an agreement on what "assault rifles" are. They are not simply any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. I have a semi-automatic hunting rifle. All that means is it loads automatically after I fire a round. The magazine only holds 3 rounds. I would not classify that as an assault rifle unless I had a 15+ round magazine. I also have semi-automatic shotguns that hold no more than 5 shells as currently set up. I am all for limiting the magazine capacity on semi-automatic weapons.

Bottom line, though, is until we all start treating people better, especially among our teenagers, we are going to have violent episodes. As touchy-feely as this sounds, we have to learn to love one another and respect those who are different, in whatever way. We need fathers who take a more active role in the raising of their children and we need families to learn how to stay together. What is happening in our country is so much more than just a weapon problem.

rbarthle17 wrote:

mountaineerman wrote:The assault style riffle is meant for soldiers or tactical style law enforcement period.this is not for a fifty seven year old woman and twenty year old son.There is no other reason to have this style weapon in your home.

Exactly right. I am not for a total gun abolishment, but I see zero reason that anyone outside of the military or special police forces to have access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There is a compromise point here, one that will at least make some progress towards eliminating a source of a threat but not swing the pendulum so far in the other direction.

I would love to hear any pro-gun person give me a rational explanation as to why an everyday citizen needs to possess these kinds of weapons. I cannot think of one.

My only objection to this is that it opens the gate to the slippery slope, and once it is opened it can never be closed. It starts with a certain type of gun, and then somebody decides there should be something else added and then something else until the right to own a gun is gone completely. My hesitance to accept something like that is not because I don't think it's the right thing to do, but because I don't trust our government to do what it says it will do.

appst89 wrote:

rbarthle17 wrote:

mountaineerman wrote:The assault style riffle is meant for soldiers or tactical style law enforcement period.this is not for a fifty seven year old woman and twenty year old son.There is no other reason to have this style weapon in your home.

Exactly right. I am not for a total gun abolishment, but I see zero reason that anyone outside of the military or special police forces to have access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There is a compromise point here, one that will at least make some progress towards eliminating a source of a threat but not swing the pendulum so far in the other direction.

I would love to hear any pro-gun person give me a rational explanation as to why an everyday citizen needs to possess these kinds of weapons. I cannot think of one.

My only objection to this is that it opens the gate to the slippery slope, and once it is opened it can never be closed. It starts with a certain type of gun, and then somebody decides there should be something else added and then something else until the right to own a gun is gone completely. My hesitance to accept something like that is not because I don't think it's the right thing to do, but because I don't trust our government to do what it says it will do.

This is why there is a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and why the Second Amendment is a part of it.