Some teachers and staff need to be gun trained & armed. Only a gun will stop a crazed killer with a gun in a school, not dumb gun laws.

“I believe that it is important that these public institutions have clear legal authority to ban weapons from their premises,” he said. “Each is entrusted with the care of a vulnerable population and should have the authority to determine whether its mission would be enhanced by the addition of concealed weapons.”

I’m pretty sure all these schools that have suffered these horrendous events have outlawed guns on their premises.

Just think how many more of these massacres we’d have if it weren’t for these laws! OK, so it doesn’t work all of the time, but it obviously does work most of the time!/s

This is just an extension of the belief that only “trained officers” and other government officials should have guns and no one else. And if innocents are massacred, that’s just too bad…because it has to do with the type of society many pretend that we have and wish to live within the boundaries of their Kumbaya fantasies.

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable. No, it’s not a cure-all, but it’s a start.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

So a few intruders just has to wait out 6 shots, eh? Or does that mean that a person has to pack 2+ weapons that carry 6 shots each?

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

The people who will have the guns that you fear are criminals, and they don’t care about the 2nd Amendment.

It’s a very, very slippery slope that you’re riding. The moment that the government says what type of gun can/can’t be used or says what the purpose of the gun should/shouldn’t be allowed, it’s about government control.

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Help me with something… as clearly and concisely as possible, tell us the purpose for (or thinking behind) the Second Amendment. Not what someone thinks it should be, or what we might wish it was, or what our “modern” world would have it be, but specifically what the folks who actually wrote it saw it to be. Since interpretation and meaning lies in authorial intent, surely it would behoove us to start by exploring what the authors intended it to mean.

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Then don’t buy anything that holds more than 6 shots.
I personally think the 17 rounds my M&P9 holds is fairly reasonable, although more would be better.
If you should ever have to deal with a home invasion by 2 or 3 or more armed thugs – which is happening a lot these days – I’d be very interested to see what those 6 shots do for you. My guess is once the cops finally show up, it will just be to do crime scene forensics and work on investigating your murder.
On the other hand, I want as many shots as I can get at one time – knowing that in the heat of battle against multiple attackers, I just might miss a few shots.

…I was hoping my Nerd would sign it!

…last friday freaked him out!

KOOLAID2 on December 18, 2012 at 10:11 PM

No way, KOOLAID. Snyder isn’t a conservative or constitutionalist. He’s a nanny state republican at heart, albeit, with no motives beyond fixing Michigan from an economic standpoint, at this time.

No civilian firearm should hold more than six bullets.
We can start there.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Lets put it another way: you want to ban the M1911. In original government configuration. One of the most popular handguns of ALL TIME STILL IN PRODUCTION because people love it.

And the Mauser C96 come to that.

The Browning 1910/1922.

The Thompson SA M1927.

The Luger.

The P38.

And that hasn’t even gotten the world to the end of the 1940′s… and there are lots more where that came from.

When did the idea of 6 shots as a ‘good idea’ disappear off the landscape? See that C96? That was the death knell for the revolver and the M1911 (yes 1911 entry of service) sealed the deal. That is why the C96 started out with a 10 round box magazine fed by a reliable stripper clip.

Why did police decide to drop the revolver in the US? High capacity firearms available to criminals were leaving them outgunned.

You aren’t going to stop criminals, collectors, avid enthusiasts, ‘rebuild kits’, and the massive, indeed impossible problem, of all those already existing, high capacity weapons already available in their millions if not tens of millions at this point.

Then there is the Marlin Model 60. It is the Commodore 64 of rifles: you can find them stashed in closets, under car seats, in dusty old boxes in attics, and a beloved learning platform for millions of entry level shooters. It is probably the most prolific rifle ever produced… fires the lowly .22lr… after Armageddon there will still be fully functional Marlin 60′s to be found with a few of them sitting next to the clicky IBM keyboards.

The M1 Garand.

Various models of the SMLE, totally bolt action.

The Henry rifle… design date of 1860… lever action. I know civilians way back in the 1860′s didn’t see ANY NEED for such a carbine but, hey, that was only before the US Civil War started.

You don’t even want to get out of the 19th century and that is your STARTING POINT? Maybe you want to outlaw anything designed since the STEAM ENGINE while you’re at it… save that the first internal combustion systems were showing up before the end of the 19th century, too. You can’t even be dragged up to post-WWII or even something a bit more modern like the 1980′s. And did you ever bother to check out what happened AFTER the Clinton AWB? Those large capacity mags sold like hotcakes. Still do as they are just plain fun to shoot.

And for your lovely idea of 6-shots or whatever the ‘reasonable limit’ is: are you going to put that on the POLICE TOO? Or do you want police to be more well armed than the rest of the general population? If so, why? We’ve had the BATFE run guns illegally to Mexico… the US State Dept did the same plus worse with grenades and FA weapons… looks like DHS has been turning a blind eye towards that, too… so why, exactly, is the US safer with better armed gangs south of the US border coming into the US for that? And if its reasonable to hand over guns to criminals that are much worse than what civilians can purchase under the CURRENT REGULATIONS then how, in any way, shape or form, will putting your limit in place actually protect a civilian population that will be horrifically outgunned by criminals? Or do you just want police and criminals to have such arms… do note that the police took 20 minutes to show up in CT and that they couldn’t stop the attack because, you know, when seconds count the police are just 20 minutes away.

And our federal government is already ignoring treaties, regulations and its legal obligations to NOT supply arms to criminals outside the US that can easily get INTO the US. Aren’t you ever so trusting of authority? It is trust misplaced.

Thanks, but no.

Good luck on your backwards, quaint and 19th century notions of firearms. You might want to join the 21st century some day. Maybe then you can figure out where the ‘real’ discussion starts and it sure isn’t with firearms as every regulation meant to keep such weapons from one man failed in CT and with such strict regulations and more of the same and worse in places like Chitown, we can say that it isn’t the regulations that have failed as they have left the civil population unable to defend itself which was the INTENT of those laws. Thus they haven’t done a thing for ‘protecting’ people and have, instead, just created more victims of criminals. And with the types of drive-bys and modern shoot-outs between gangs, just see where your idea of 6 shooters gets you. Time to join the 21st century and deal with mental illness and stop trying to paint those who want basic protection for their home and family as being ‘criminal wannabes’. Believe me, if you don’t think you need more than 6 shots in defending a close-quarters environment, then you haven’t really thought about home invasions. We have crime and criminal types that blow away the old 6-shooter concept which was great for the Old West, but just doesn’t apply today. And what makes YOU feel safe leaves ME feeling undergunned, but then I’m not placing my faith in government to come to the rescue, either.

I listened to him at length yesterday on a local radio program. He had issue with some of the wording in the bill and is looking for some changes in the legislation, sent it back so they could get it right. If it matters, he did make the comment that something needed to be done in the way of arming at least somebody in the school.

Snyder is not your typical politician, not by any stretch. He is not concerned at all about the next election, only in what is right for the state. MI has had so much progress since his election, his motto is ” No blame, No credit”. He pissed off so many last week with RTW, not just the unions. He either hurt his chances of re-election or he helped it, we won’t know for awhile. He also signed some abortion legislation last week, so the anti life people are in an uproar.

He cracks me up though, he is so positive all the time.

Do that for just a year, and the instances of rape will plummet.

It’s part of the Chumpwar on Women, any woman that can’t take down a rapist in six shots is basically asking for it.

Axeman on December 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Ha!

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Says a clueless know-nothing who wouldn’t be able to recite the Second Amendment verbatim without Googling it first, and has clearly never read a single sentence from the Federalist Papers.

Hey, let’s set you down on foot with a bunch of feral hogs and 6 shots. Or, lets have you be a woman faced with several robbers or rapists, and 6 shots.

Good luck.

I thank God everyday I live in Texas and have Rick Perry as governor.

Disappointing but understandable.

Quit making excuses for these cowards. If they can’t stand up for what’s right NOW…when will the right time be?

YELLOW COWARD TO THE CORE.

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Do you truly think, if they had such technology when the Bill of Rights was amended to our Constitution, there would have been exceptions made? If so, prove it. People back then used to freely own cannons.

And who the hell are you to dare tell me to what I have no right when it comes to firearms? It’s not like anyone elected you God, last I heard.

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

No, it isn’t.

Don’t know why women need ANY type of weapon to thwart an attacker, if it’s a legitimate attack their bodies have ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

greataunty on December 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM

Plus, she commits no civil rights violation if her attacker is a minority. Because any woman who kills a minority assailant did it because she’s a racist at heart.

Just ask our resident racial expert on that, libfreeordie.

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

You’ll have to point out that language to us. Is it in the super double-secret Article 5?

The only limitation I can see in the 2nd Amendment is the word bear. That means anything I can carry I cannot be denied.

And no Congress should hold more than six liberals.
We can start there.

dominigan on December 19, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Exactly, we can definitely believe that the founders could not have foreseen the proliferation of liberals (who have a problem with liberty).

Don’t know why women need ANY type of weapon to thwart an attacker, if it’s a legitimate attack their bodies have ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

greataunty on December 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM

Not only that, she could be on Guam, run too close to the edge and as her assailant(s) attacks her, she could be saved by the whole thing tipping over.

We just need poverty-free safe zones, right.

Axeman on December 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM

There ya go!

The same way poverty can be ended if we just throw more money at the problem. /

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 8:48 AM

We just need poverty-free safe zones, right.