It is OBVIOUS the coach is CLUELESS about cardio physiology or he would have realized a sudden forceful blow to the chest can cause a person - children specifically - to die of V Tach of V Fib based upon the R on T phenomenon. In fact literature suggest a person be admitted and monitored for 24 hours after experiencing the blow to the chest.

Why is it that when bombs kill people bombers get blamed, but when guns kill people guns get blamed? Something is not right with that logic.

Pseudo intellectuals would rather medicate and make zombies out of students than discipline. If more school systems implemented corporal punishment there would be less need for ritalin and such.

Here is a link that Scott Berry the sheriff of Oconee County has on his FB page. It discusses what REAL law enforcement officers feel about gun control. These are individuals who day in and day out have to be concerned about being shot by a weapon and they are not talking heads that have appointed positions in law enforcement for major cities.

Read more: http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

[quote][b]avenger[/b]
Bombs are illegal, assault weapons with high-capacity magazines are not. [/quote]

I beg to differ; there is nothing illegal about one going to Kroger and purchasing 5 gallons worth of fuel and distributing it within glass bottles with cloth tops.

Guns, even assault weapons - that you can't seem to describe, are not designed to kill. They are designed to hit a target; it is human beings that make that target another human being. If a human being in CO or CT did not pull the trigger this would not be an issue.

Your position reminds me of the difference between a conservative and a progressive. If a conservative does not like meat he/she does not purchase it. However, if a progressive does not like meat then he/she does not want it sold in stores for anyone else to purchase.

The bottom line is, people do not choose areas to unleash their violence where they stand to be shot dead by an armed populace. It is most unfortunate that current law does not allow legal law abiding citizens very few options other than being victims in such a target rich environment. I for one am willing to accept collateral damage if it could put an abrupt halt to such madness.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - @raleturn: Because the founders of this country realize an armed populace could act as a deterrent to a tyranical government is the reason the right to bears arms went to the people in order for them to develop a militia.
Actually not. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was a right to bear arms in a well regulated militia to protect the community from a foreign power not it's own government. That is the myth that conservatives want us to believe. I have firearms but they are for self-defense and personal use and not to fight against my government. I'm not a tin-foil conspiracy patriot. I'm a true American patriot. [/quote]

That is a revisionist view of history. According to your writings the 2nd ammendment would no longer exist since you used past tense verbs. The people were given the rights to bear arms to form a militia to protect the country against both foreign and domestic enemies. This can not be the National Guard or Military Reserves since they make up the government. I well not question your patriotism but perhaps your view of history is a tad distorted.

Can you define an assault weapon? Does a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or flash suppressor make it any more deadly than one with out those. One can easily take a Remington Pump or Semiautomatic Rifle and kill just as many if not more than one can with an AR 15 platform rifle.

Would it have been acceptable if the individual in CO or CT used moltov cocktail bombs and burned those people do death? Theses 2 individuals would have done evil regardless of the method used. Unfortunately all current law guarantee is a target rich environment for people who have lost touch with reality. From my perspective armed citizens should have legal viable options to put an abrupt halt to such carnage immediately be it one with a rifle of cocktail bomb.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] - @Farmer GA: I am interested in reducing the carnage from assault weapons and extended clips and you are not. Simple as that. [/quote]

Can you give me facts and figures concerning any weapon that has taken human life without a human being pulling the trigger. You refuse to address the issue which is the evilness of mankind; instead you prefer to make it where the only legal viable option a person has during a mass shooting is to be nothing more than a victim in such a target rich environment.

[quote][b]avenger[/b] Assault weapons with extended magazines are not the appropriate tool for self-defense or hunting. It's only use is to kill as many people as possible as quick as you can. It's only real use is for combat in a war. So why is it legal for citizens to purchase? Are you going to a war? [/quote]

Because the founders of this country realize an armed populace could act as a deterrent to a tyranical government is the reason the right to bears arms went to the people in order for them to develop a militia.

[quote][b]shawn706[/b] - Bottem line. Less people would shoot, if more people could shoot back.
[/quote]

I don't think I have ever read a more truer statement than this one. No one can attack the logic of such either.

@fred astaire: One who truly HATES homosexuals is one who supports the LIE they have been told !!!

@fred astaire: Gay marriage is an oxymoron !!!

@fred astaire: Using your logic an evolved society in the 2050's may not view pedophilia as abnormal behavior since they are more enlightened than we are.

@fred astaire: Statistics and history are on my side of this debate if you can get beyond your bias and look at it from a longitudinal perspective. Marriage was established before the United States, the Constitution, and Supreme Court every existed. This whole case is nothing more than a poor attempt to legitimize and illegitimate lifestyle. When one allows the door to be opened for sexual perversions to be biological in nature vs mental disorders then there is no end to the slippery slope.

Just as repulsive as we find pedophila in the 2010's I would venture to say that same could be said about homosexuality in the 1950's. According to your logic a more evolved society of the 2050's very well may find pedophilia a viable option since one did not ask to be born naturally attracted to children vs. adults of the opposite gender.

@fred astaire: I am sorry; I must have given you too much credit for reading comprehension. Let's try this: you can call H3 0 water, but it is not water. A marriage is made up of one man and one woman. You can call the ceremony between a man and a man or a woman and a woman a marriage, but it is not so. History from the foundation of the earth is on my side. Yes you may find outliers of where this has been tried before, but you do not see a flourishing society where the definition of marriage has been redefined.

Under Darwin's theory of the natural selection process we are wasting considerable amount of time, money, and interest with HIV and AIDS research since it is nothing more than natures way of getting rid part of the human population who have nothing to contribute to the survival of the species.

@fred astaire: Again just as the chemical make up of water is H2 0 and not H3 0 so too the make up of marriage is one man and one woman. Now you can put any spin you want to on it, but you will never get H3 0 to be water and neither will marriage ever be anything but between one man and one woman.

The reality is the definition of marriage has been long established before the Supreme Court or the Constitution were every thought of. That definition is marriage has been defined as the relationship between one man and one woman. Attempting to define it any other way is the same as say watering is made of H3 0 instead of H2 0.

He sounds smarter than most adults !!!

@melquiades: Good try on your interpretation of the second ammendment; however, the militia is not to be part of the government since that is part of what it is designed to protect us from.

@The Dixie Dove: What drives your fear of inanimate objects; you know you can use rational emotive behavioral therapy as subscribed by the Albert Ellis institute to overcome that.

Gun Free Zone = Target Rich Environment.

@ppensyl: From my perspective the only thing they should be charged with is not paying tax on the profits they made. It is not like these people set up shop at Banks Crossing and sold it to the general public as they came into a store. A person had to make a conscious willful effort to purchase it from them and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law including the POPO !!!

@solidroque: NEVER !!!

Then arrest the freaking POPO for solicitation of an illegal drug as well. These people did NOT go out looking for customers; they customers came looking for them. If it is illegal to attempt to purchase methamphetamines then put the POPO under the freakin jail since they have a higher standard to live up to. I bet they smoked half the crap they bought and only put the other half in their report.

I rest my case; there is very little difference between Nascar and the WWF since they both are media whores that seek TV ratings due to both being centered around entertainment rather than a sport.