[busterbunker]

[speartactical]

This is US ARMY Special Forces Staff Sargeant Nick Lavery. He lost his leg while deployed in Afghanistan, and fought not only for his life but for another chance to return to active duty and continue to serve his country after being given the offer to medically retire.

While on his deployment in Afghanistan, his team was fighting in the Wardak Province and took shrapnel from an RPG which left a “lemon-sized hole” in his shoulder. Refusing to be evac-ed, he plugged the hole with gauze and continued taking the fight to the enemy. He was eventually taken to BAB where he was treated for his injuries.

In November 2012, while riding in truck convoy, the vehicle he was in was hit by an IED. Amidst the ensuing firefight, Lavery sprung into action, running to the aid of his comrades and managed to take out two enemies and another one as he was trying to flee. As he was pursuing the third shooter, he took a bullet to the face! Seeing the truck on fire Lavery ran toward the flaming vehicle, and searched through the rubble for any injured teammates. He found Captain Neiman, who had managed to survive the blast despite having served an artery in his arm and both his legs being severely mangled. Lavery managed to pull Captain Neiman out saving his life.

In March 2013, Lavery placed himself between a young soldier who had frozen when a member of the Afghan police opened fire with a machine gun. Lavery tackled the teenage soldier and dragged him to cover but in doing so was shot in the legs multiple times severing his femoral artery. He applied a tourney to stop the bleeding until he was taken to medical care. Due to the extensive injury Lavery eventually lost his leg and was given a prosthetic limb. He was offered medical retirement but declined.

SSGT Nick Lavery continues serving as a tactical combat instructor at Ft. Bragg while continuing his rehab with his prosthetic leg

[countryfolklive]

Whoa damn dude is a tough sob

[deucstrkr]

This warrior is a bad dude! Thank you sir

[krokus-now]

[shitstorm-1]

[jaidefinichon]

[poemswords]

[mypsychology]

[abeautifulmess526]

This☝🏼👍🏼💞

[italicised]

“arm the teachers”

this just in: teacher commits mass shooting at elementary school

also: student steals teacher’s gun, gun accidentally goes off

breaking news: no one wants to be a teacher anymore

news flash: not everyone wants to own a gun

reality check: no, you’re wrong.

[therevenantrising-deactivated20]

Actual Reality Check

No one is advocating for forcing teachers to be armed.

We are advocating that if teachers would like to be armed, they should have that right.

Several states have been allowing teachers to be armed for several years now and it has been working out just fine.

None of your bullshit scenarios have happened in the states mentioned above.

Quit fear mongering.

[bill-11b]

OP: Explain how gun free zones prevent someone from shooting people within them.  So far they don’t appear to have worked, but maybe my powers of observation aren’t as honed as your own. 

[italicised]

Gun control laws are a lot more than “gun free zones.”

That’s how. 

[bill-11b]

But what you described was advocating for gun free zones.  The premise of your argument assumes that by not allowing teachers to bring guns to school by statute, they are somehow physically prevented from being able to do so.  More to the point. There are 300 million firearms in 100 million civilian hands, legally, in the US (and that number is from a year or two ago, so it’s probably significantly more on both counts).  There are 320 million people in the country.  And yet, just over 30,000 people a year die by firearm, and 20,000 of them are suicides.  There are about 12,000 homicides a year, including justifiable homicide by a cop or citizen defending themselves.  So I’m curious, how, by taking literally 99.99% of gun owner’s rights from them, will you prevent the .01% of gun owners who commit crimes with their guns?  What else should we ban?  Cigarettes?  Automobiles? Swimming? 

[italicised]

What? I wasn’t advocating for gun free zones. I never said that. I’m advocating to make it tougher for everyone to get a gun. 

You can prevent those firearms deaths. That’s nearly 12,000 deaths and you’re seriously shrugging it off and saying “eh, only .1% of gun owners kill this many people a year, so it’s fine”

And those aren’t fucking rights, that’s a privilege. You can site your out-dated constitution but you’re being governed by fat assholes from ye olden times. 

I’d be fine with banning cigarettes. They cause a health concern to those of us with asthma. Automobiles, well people should have check-up tests every 5 years or something. Swimming idek. At any rate they’re not comparable. You can’t buy a pack of cigarettes at your corner store and decide to kill people with it - thankfully, that’s just yourself. But you can with a gun. 

[bill-11b]

What about your first amendment right to free speech? Is that just a privilege to be taken away at whim by the government?  What about your fourth amendment right to not be searched without just cause and a warrant? That must be an outdated privilege dreamed up by fat assholes from ye olden times.  I assume we don’t need our sixth amendment right to a trial by jury, right? It would totally swell if the government could arrest you for speaking your mind, proceed to search your person, effects (cell phone), conveyance, and house because you spoke, and then for a government tribunal to find you guilty of Crimes X, Y, and Z, and sentence you to whatever punishment they see fitting.  I mean, only ye old fat assholes think that’s a silly way to run a government, right?  Or is it only one right that’s protected by that document, that you despise?  You fundamentally fail to understand how rights work or how and why our nation was established, and worse, you take the liberties that millions have died to protect for granted.  Why do I shrug off the fact that .01% of the population is killed with a firearm? Because I implore you to show me anything else that kills anywhere near that few people and receives the amount of negative press.  Please provide an example of any other group of people in which literally 99.99% of the participants are not criminal in any way, harbor no ill will, or have any desire to harm anyone, and yet are demonized for the actions of an insanely small minority.  Obesity is an epidemic accounting for 3 times that many deaths.  Yet we have fat glorification groups.  You say you want to ban smoking?  What about drinking?  What about narcotics that are already banned?  What about violent music, video games, or television?  Should we ban knives with sharp points? After all, you don’t need a point on a knife to be able to cook.  At what point are you willing to take the risk of dangerous freedom and not accept government intrusion into your life?  France has extremely strict bans and controls on military style arms for civilians.  Yet somehow two men walked into a newspaper office in Paris with two fully automatic AK47s and shot 15 people to death. How? Those guns weren’t legal to sell, buy, or posses.  How did they get them then, if gun laws are so effective?  Admit it. You’re scared. And rather than take control of your own life, and accept responsibility for your own safety, you prefer other men, carrying guns, to protect you. And hell, if that means they get to tell you what to do as well, so be it. It’s not like a government has ever abused it’s authority on a disarmed populace, right?

Good thing

none of these people

were armed.  Who knows what might have happened. 

[revengeofthemudbutt-deactivated]

FUCKING. DESTROYED

[wibblylever782]

Now that is the definition of a Mic Drop.

[mrandmrsaj]

OMG…This is the greatest thing ever..btw, sorry for posting something out of our norm, but I feel too strongly about this to NOT forward it on to as many people as possible..

-Mr