How Dumb

[SteveXD]

Did anyone see this yet. 2 minutes into this video she starts on the dumbest rant I've ever heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzcAdxLYBmo

about 5 minues in...
"Having a welcome desk will and a guest book will stop court house shootings"

6:30..
Add some signs!!

[axmdr40]

[PisnNapalm]

I think I just lost a few IQ points by listening to her.

[angus]

She is incoherent.

She makes some point that she a "shootout at the OC corrall" is undesireable; therefore the idea of armed citizens stopping a maniac is an untenable situation.

However, she does not address (nor is she asked) if she prefers allowing free reign to a maniac mass murderer as he wanders around killing people.

"What are the rest of us supposed to do? Duck and cover?"

Well, yes. I would hope people would be seeking cover in that situation. Her argument seems to be that it is somehow better to allow unchallenged kill zones to a mass murderer. If there were no armed citizens seeking to stop the guy, what would your course of action be? Would it not be to still seek cover as an unarmed citizen? What the hell was she going on about, anyway?

[SteveXD]

In the third video she goes on to say that she really doesn't buy into the consitutional right to carry in the state building... I am glad no one gave her any support. She is not going to make any friends on NH with her attitude.

[fordmech00]

uuuhhhhhh, what?!?! So instead she would rather have a crazed lunitic with a gun kill everyone there, than evereone there kill one crazed lunitic. Makes sence to me.......

[ungawa]

She makes some point that she a "shootout at the OC corrall" is undesireable; therefore the idea of armed citizens stopping a maniac is an untenable situation.

I hear this argument a lot. Even under the worst conditions for friendly fire I would expect one or two people trading shots with an armed assailant to go better than letting him intentionally shoot 14 people or kill 40. Not that the practicalities of hypothetical scenarios come even close to the importance of the basic right to defend yourself.

[jmanzini]

Well, everyone knows that a "Welcome Desk" is the first line of defense against a lunatic. Don't they?

[ungawa]

Well, everyone knows that a "Welcome Desk" is the first line of defense against a lunatic. Don't they?

A welcome desk MIGHT stop him but everybody knows that a metal detector always beats the living crap out of an armed intruder.

[mauser]

She is incoherent.

She makes some point that she a "shootout at the OC corrall" is undesireable; therefore the idea of armed citizens stopping a maniac is an untenable situation.

However, she does not address (nor is she asked) if she prefers allowing free reign to a maniac mass murderer as he wanders around killing people.

"What are the rest of us supposed to do? Duck and cover?"

Well, yes. I would hope people would be seeking cover in that situation. Her argument seems to be that it is somehow better to allow unchallenged kill zones to a mass murderer. If there were no armed citizens seeking to stop the guy, what would your course of action be? Would it not be to still seek cover as an unarmed citizen? What the hell was she going on about, anyway?

Like she said they did in the schools where she worked, line the students up against the wall!
Isn't that similar to how they execute prisoners in less developed countries?
That sounds like a damn good plan to me.
NOT!