All of the Klan above are on record favoring such state laws

How's the gun free zone 'law' in Florida strike you fellas?

Whatever you are trying to say or prove is not valid here.

The cops on duty for the security at or in the club were armed.

Move along, folks ... numbnuts has lost it AGAIN.

The cops on duty for the security at or in the club were armed.

I haven't heard any reports to that effect yet..

Have you?

"The cops on duty for the security at or in the club were armed."

I thought I read that the first person shot was the security guard. Then the shooter went inside.

Florida Gay Nightclub Massacre Proves Armed Security Isn’t Likely to be Effective

It’s important to note that the Pulse nightclub killer exchanged gunfire with a police officer working security at the venue. The officer was unable to stop the murderer, who proceeded to kill 50 and wound dozens more. This backs-up our conclusions drawn from our school shooting simulation. When a killer attacks, the first person he targets is armed security. Given that action beats reaction, the chances are high that the perpetrator will neutralize the security first and proceed with impunity. Unless, of course, he or she encounters further armed resistance.

Specifically, armed civilians. But that wasn’t an option here. An Orlando police officer interviewed this morning by Fox News stated that all customers at The Pulse nightclub are patted down as they enter.

Here’s Nick’s write-up:

Results: Scenario 1

Scenario 1 consisted of a single armed guard seated behind a desk, facing the entryway. This position is consistent with many current configurations for schools, enabling the security guard to watch the front door and challenge visitors to the school during the day.

Unarmed participants were then walked out an opening in the wall and past the guard until the shooter emerged from the opening and engaged the guard. The guard was not aware of exactly when the shooter would emerge and therefore had no specific advanced warning.

[This type of scenario attempts to replicate situations where the shooter is carrying the firearm concealed into the school, or the security guard does not have sufficient warning through cameras or other means to alert them that an armed intruder is about to enter the school.]

According to the results from our testing, in this scenario the armed security guard appears to be ineffective at interdicting the active shooter. While the “shooter” can choose their moment to attack and prepare themselves to fire the moment they are seen by the security guard, the guard has insufficient time to respond.

In future experiments we would like to investigate the effectiveness of an armed guard when there is advanced warning, such as would be provided if the shooter was visible through a door

Move along, folks ... numbnuts has lost it AGAIN.

Who the FUCK are you to order us to "move along?"

How's the gun free zone 'law' in Florida strike you fellas?

All of the Klan above are on record favoring such state laws.

Whatever you are trying to say or prove is not valid here.

I'm trying to say that the jihadist would have been shot down by armed customers before he had the chance to kill as many as he did.

You're trying to defend a state 'law' that's indefensible, and unconstitutional.

The cops on duty for the security at or in the club were armed.

I haven't heard any reports to that effect yet..

Have you?

Of course, otherwise I would not have posted it.

FOX News before daybreak this morning made mention of it.

Did not say how many, but there was at least one.

When a killer attacks, the first person he targets is armed security. Given that action beats reaction, the chances are high that the perpetrator will neutralize the security first and proceed with impunity. Unless, of course, he or she encounters further armed resistance.

Specifically, armed civilians. But that wasn’t an option here.

Yup. People who say nobody needs guns because the police will protect us are painting targets on all our chests.

Who the FUCK are you to order us to "move along?"

Gatlin pretends to be a retired major, and a conservative.

He's neither.

Who the FUCK are you to order us to "move along?"

I am Gatlin, that is who I am.

Wait a minute, let me put on my fascist cap.

I AM GATLIN, THAT IS WHO I AM!!!

There, that was more authoritarian.

People who say nobody needs guns because the police will protect us are painting targets on all our chests.

Well, I've pinged most here to this thread, but somehow they can't come up with the balls to defend their position.

I AM GATLIN, THAT IS WHO I AM!!!

naw. You are just a potatoe peeler living off the fat o' the land by the good grace of thousands of hard working Americans.

Gatlin pretends to be a retired major, and a conservative.

He's neither.

I am just The Great Pretender.

ROTFL ..

I am THE GREATEST POTATO PEELER living off the fat o' the land by the good grace of thousands of hard working Americans.

And I sincerely thank you for your contributions to my health and well being.

ROTFL ...

And I sincerely thank you for your contributions to my health and well being.

We will remove your free handouts in the near future when we get a change of management in Congress.

"The cops on duty for the security at or in the club were armed."

I thought I read that the first person shot was the security guard. Then the shooter went inside.

The way I heard it on the news was that a security guard (a cop) was outside and engaged the terrorist before the terrorist got inside. Those early reports are sometime unreliable ...

And I sincerely thank you for your contributions to my health and well being.

We will remove your free handouts in the near future when we get a change of management in Congress.

Then you will be depriving some wonderful charities of goodly sums of money.

But you don't give a fuck about anyone except yourself, so that will not matter to you ... dumb ass Paultard.

Then you will be depriving some wonderful charities of goodly sums of money.

Good. We don't need you deciding how to make transfer payments.

Gay Bar Is Gun Free Zone

Most faggots don't carry guns anyway. Most are libtarded. They expect others to protect them. I guess that shit didn't work that well.

More fuel for Trumps fire. Fuckin filthy diaper head.

I am just The Great Pretender.

You sure are.

That's a great old song, very popular the year I was in basic. -- which I doubt you ever experienced, given your politics.

I'm trying to say that the jihadist would have been shot down by armed customers before he had the chance to kill as many as he did.

A statement based upon an invalid assumption can surely display gross ignorance.

You have no way of knowing what would or would not have happened if it were not a gun free zone.

Wait, I forgot ... you are one of those Paultards who can read a headline and form an opinion without ever reading the article.

More fuel for Trumps fire. Fuckin filthy diaper head.

Now you're calling Trump names?

Weird fella.

Yup. People who say nobody needs guns because the police will protect us are painting targets on all our chests.

Has anyone "said" that on LF?

Carry on.

You have no way of knowing what would or would not have happened if it were not a gun free zone.

I think there are grounds for an educated hypothesis: "The First Responders Report™ brings you stories of people who are alive today because they had fully loaded, readily accessible firearms for their intended purpose -- to protect innocent life and property from criminal assault when it is immediately necessary -- actions you can take that are guaranteed by law." - www.gunlaws.com/The FirstRespondersReport.htm

More fuel for Trumps fire. Fuckin filthy diaper head.

Now you're calling Trump names?

Weird fella.

You got that turned around ... confused as always.

Trump ain't no fuckin filthy diaper head ... Trump is no Paultard living in California.

How's the gun free zone 'law' in Florida strike you fellas?

All of the Klan above are on record favoring such state laws.

Whatever you are trying to say or prove is not valid here.

You're trying to defend a state 'law' that's indefensible, and unconstitutional.

A statement based upon an invalid assumption can surely display gross ignorance. --- You have no way of knowing what would or would not have happened if it were not a gun free zone.

You defend gun free zone legislation in the thread posted this morning.

Now you deny that position?

I think there are grounds for an educated hypothesis

If he meant it to be, then I could take it as such.

But knowing tapine ... I will have a hard time believing he did.

You defend gun free zone legislation in the thread posted this morning.

Now you deny that position?

No need to deny anything.

What I said this morning was that I believe states individually have the right to regulate interstate commerce and the feds have the right to regulate intrastate commerce.

I still believe that.

I am a firm believer of States Rights ... the old George Wallace School sans any racism.

I have never called for a gun free zone at anytime or for anyplace.

... living off the fat o' the land ...

Living off the fat of the land ... Ah ya, ole Bobby McGee!!

ROTFL ...

Then you will be depriving some wonderful charities of goodly sums of money.

Good. We don't need you deciding how to make transfer payments.

Not a problem ...

I never have to decide anything about personal finances, I have accountants programmed to do that for me.

ivn.us/2012/11/10/how-did...-perform-in-the-election/

In 2012, Virgil Goode, of the Constitution Party, received 4,130 votes,which represents <1% of the popular vote. He was on the ballot in 26 states and as a write-in in 13 states.

In 2012, Virgil Goode, of the Constitution Party, received 4,130 votes,which represents <1% of the popular vote.

Did you have a point?

That's a great old song, very popular the year I was in basic. -- which I doubt you ever experienced, given your politics.

Doubt what you will ... you always do, regardless of what information is presented to you.

All Paultards suffer form that affliction ...

I believe states individually have the right to regulate interstate commerce and the feds have the right to regulate intrastate commerce.

Are you sure you didn't get that backward?

I have never called for a gun free zone at anytime or for anyplace.

I say let the forum readers decide what you wrote regarding the rights of States to regulate guns: ---

Title: Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry

You got that turned around ... confused as always.

Gatlin is quite a bit smarter than you. Even that filthy gorilla that was shot a few weeks ago would have known what I was sayin.

I believe states individually have the right to regulate interstate commerce and the feds have the right to regulate intrastate commerce.

Are you sure you didn't get that backward?

Yea, I did.

Slow down, Gatlin.

Thanks ...

Edit: You are probably the only one that caught it since most people read what they want to read into something.

You betcha! I have a point.

The Constitution Party has app. 158 supporters in 26 states.

I think Vermin Supreme received more votes.

Gatlin is quite a bit smarter than you ---

Only to a dimwitted oaf like you, your grandiosity.

You betcha! I have a point.

The Constitution Party has app. 158 supporters in 26 states.

I think Vermin Supreme received more votes.

Seems to me like a pointless point.

How's the gun free zone 'law' in Florida strike you fellas?

Remind me. Which one of your beloved federal court judges overruled it under the new nationalized 2nd Amendment?

Remind me. Which one of your beloved federal court judges --

¿ -- You're confused, as usual. I don't love no judges...

---overruled it under the new nationalized 2nd Amendment?

Newly nationalized? The 2nd has always applied to the States.

Your Klan insists otherwise, but we all know they're just canaries.

The 2nd has always applied to the States.

Invincible ignorance combined with too much cowardice to answer the question.

Remind me. Which one of your beloved federal court judges overruled it under the new nationalized 2nd Amendment?

I don't love no judges, and none have 'overruled' such 'laws' --- because they agree with them. --As you gungrabbers do.

Invincible ignorance combined with too much cowardice to answer the question.

Your own cowardice prevents you from answering my question, - why do you support gun free zone laws?

"The 2nd has always applied to the States."

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
-- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

But maybe I'm reading that wrong, huh?

Roscoe (#47) --- "The 2nd has always applied to the States."

That's a quote from my post, but it's not surprising, (coward that you are) that you addressed it to roscoe.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..." -- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The cruikshank opinion does not change the clear words of the 2nd, as written.

But maybe I'm reading that wrong, huh?

You have been for years. -- The question is WHY? -Why do you want to allow States like California to ignore our gun rights?

I realize you're to cowardly to answer this question, so I hope one of your canary Klan buddies will ...