If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard)   NBC News talking head David Gregory chides NRAs Wayne LaPierre for even considering the notion of having armed guards at schools. After the interview, he picked up his kids at their school...which has 11 on the security payroll   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 521
    More: Dumbass, NBC, mock trial, Sidwell Friends, payrolls, security  
•       •       •

9312 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 11:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



521 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-24 07:17:22 AM
Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.
 
2012-12-24 07:26:39 AM

sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.


The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
 
2012-12-24 07:55:26 AM
I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning
 
2012-12-24 07:56:20 AM
Security guards at the school where Obama's kids attend?

This is an outrage!
 
2012-12-24 07:59:28 AM
Some children are more important than others, submitter. It's a fact of life.
 
2012-12-24 08:11:30 AM
Only children of the elite deserve schools with gun-carrying protectors.
 
2012-12-24 08:16:52 AM
David Gregory probably does not set school policy.
 
2012-12-24 08:18:42 AM

BunkyBrewman: Security guards at the school where Obama's kids attend?


TFA mentions that this is not counting the SS detail.
 
2012-12-24 08:21:08 AM
This is a lot like Al Gore lecturing us all on how we are killing the planet with everything we do in our lives and yet its ok for him to pollute the skies as he rides around on a jet telling lies everywhere.
 
2012-12-24 08:22:11 AM
Only peasants send their children to schools where they can be slaughtered.
 
2012-12-24 08:24:58 AM
 the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends

                  HA    HA

 encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

            ARMED QUAKERS
 
2012-12-24 08:31:12 AM

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


Yet he probably chose the school based on it's policies. Go figure.
 
2012-12-24 08:32:32 AM

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


And he clearly doesn't object strongly enough to not send his kids there.
 
2012-12-24 08:34:29 AM
I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?
 
2012-12-24 08:38:09 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: BunkyBrewman: Security guards at the school where Obama's kids attend?

TFA mentions that this is not counting the SS detail.


Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security. That, plus "security" doesn't necessarily mean against rampage shooters. If you have security at a Foot Locker they're there to stop thieves, not prepared to take down a guy with a high powered rifle.
 
2012-12-24 08:38:34 AM
Did you guys know that the President said he doesn't think all Americans should have Secret Service protection, even though he himself has Secret Service protection??? What a hypocrite! It's like he thinks some lives are more valuable than others!
 
2012-12-24 08:41:32 AM

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.
 
2012-12-24 08:45:11 AM

Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.


Oh, clearly. All Americans should get exactly the same level of day-to-day protection. That makes perfect sense.
 
2012-12-24 08:49:09 AM

kxs401: Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.

Oh, clearly. All Americans should get exactly the same level of day-to-day protection. That makes perfect sense.


Of course it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to waste time with anything like one or two police officers assigned detail or anything like that. Look, banks need armed guards. Malls need armed guards. Pro sports events need armed guards. These are things we value. It's all about priorities.
 
2012-12-24 08:49:35 AM

EnviroDude: Only peasants send their children to schools where they can be slaughtered.


If you want armed security for your kids then pay for it yourself.  Send them to a school that has it.  Unless you're ready for the taxes it will take to pay to put them in every public school.

Higher taxes for education and a massive expansion of government.   EnviroDude, I don't think I even know you anymore.
 
2012-12-24 08:54:02 AM

Nabb1: kxs401: Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.

Oh, clearly. All Americans should get exactly the same level of day-to-day protection. That makes perfect sense.

Of course it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to waste time with anything like one or two police officers assigned detail or anything like that. Look, banks need armed guards. Malls need armed guards. Pro sports events need armed guards. These are things we value. It's all about priorities.


Argue that schools need armed guards if you'd like, but that's not the point this headline is trying to make. "Conservatives" are trying to present this situation as some sort of "HA! Gotcha!" Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't.
 
2012-12-24 08:54:09 AM

nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.


Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.
 
2012-12-24 08:54:28 AM

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


That's pretty much what I was going to say. When you have the children of high profile folks attending your exclusive school in droves (it is a very exclusive school, btw), you'll want that security. However, the chances of someone trying to kidnap and hold for ransom one of the kids at one the schools here are  probably zero. If there's gonna be a kidnapping in my solidly middle class area, it's going to be a parent who was denied custody or a perv. Why should my community bear the extra expense of bored, armed personnel on every site? While my city is financially solvent, the ones around us are not. They'd have to get the big, bad ol' government to pay for it.

We have an armed,  off duty officer at one of the High  Schools at all times, but he was always in the lunch room,  hanging  out with the lunch ladies, unless it was time for his rounds. Not only that, that particular school is pretty rough. It's a necessity in that situation, but the kids were most likely to be.the ones needing to be shot, not an intruder.  Hell, a bunch of those kids were probably packin' heat on the sly. It's one of the reasons that when I found  out how bad  things were there when my son was still in H.S., I moved.

Also remember, Columbine had an armed guard, Virginia Tech subcontracted out with the  police department and Fort Hood was a military base,  for pity's sake. The presence of armed personnel is obviously not a deterrent at all. Something does need to be done, but armed guards at every school, especially of the citizen patrol or teacher variety, is not the answer. What the answer  is, I am not entirely sure. I'll get back to you when I figure it out.
 
2012-12-24 08:55:32 AM
It's safe to say the school where Gregory sends his kids is a high-security school. It's just odd he'd want it for his kids, but wouldn't be more open to it for others.

It's also entirely possible that he feels the same way about the armed guards at this school, but whatever feelings he has are outweighed by the educational benefits provided there.
 
2012-12-24 08:55:51 AM

kxs401: Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't


I can only assume that you regularly rail on people for wanting to have things that you afford yourself.
 
2012-12-24 08:57:21 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


Important? No. At risk? Yes. But I think you know that. Or do you also think that you need a stop light and crosswalk at every intersection?
 
2012-12-24 08:58:19 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: kxs401: Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't

I can only assume that you regularly rail on people for wanting to have things that you afford yourself.


No, I'm saying that you can argue for armed guards in schools all you want to, but "this school has armed guards, therefore all schools need armed guards" is not a logical argument. Find a better one.
 
2012-12-24 08:58:36 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


They pay for that security.  You're welcome to as well if that's your choice.
 
2012-12-24 08:59:00 AM
Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.
 
2012-12-24 08:59:43 AM
Also,

Dancin_In_Anson: Good to see that you understand that their there are children that are more important than yours.


FTFY
 
2012-12-24 09:01:19 AM

JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.


Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?
 
2012-12-24 09:03:52 AM

kxs401: No, I'm saying that you can argue for armed guards in schools all you want to, but "this school has armed guards, therefore all schools need armed guards" is not a logical argument.


That's not the argument.

Diogenes: They pay for that security. You're welcome to as well if that's your choice.


Wait...I thought my taxes went to fire and...police protection. Now I have to pay more for the police part of the equation. Hmph.
 
2012-12-24 09:04:47 AM

nmrsnr: FTFY


Dancin_In_Anson: Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


FTFM...AY
 
2012-12-24 09:05:41 AM

nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?


Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.
 
2012-12-24 09:11:40 AM
If all the kids and teachers were packing heat those guards wouldn't be needed. Duh.... problem solved. Can't you all see that?
 
2012-12-24 09:15:47 AM

Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.


Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.
 
2012-12-24 09:17:05 AM
We had the cops at my high school every day. Still had stabbings and shootings.
 
2012-12-24 09:18:49 AM
I also hope no guns were harmed due to David's insensitive comments and dismissive attitude. After all, the safety of our guns is the most important thing here
 
2012-12-24 09:19:26 AM

Diogenes: Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.

Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.


And you are arguing that security for children should be a luxury item. Strange days indeed.
 
2012-12-24 09:21:08 AM

Diogenes: Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.


It's called "choice". Maybe you've heard that word used in other discussions regarding children.
 
2012-12-24 09:23:25 AM
NRA- All pets require litterboxes!

David Gregory- no, not all pets need litterboxes.

NRA-OMG but you have litterboxes for your cats! That means you're a hypocrite, Michael Moore has to be put to death by firing squad, and Sarah Palin is the head of the Department of Education!

Rational people- *facepalm*
 
2012-12-24 09:25:18 AM

Nabb1: Diogenes: Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.

Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.

And you are arguing that security for children should be a luxury item. Strange days indeed.


Fallacy of insufficient options.  I'm saying we can have smart security for all without further bankrupting education.
 
2012-12-24 09:27:16 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Diogenes: Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.

It's called "choice". Maybe you've heard that word used in other discussions regarding children.


Then stop arguing that the choice by the parents to send their kids to this school is wrong.

Honestly, you're struggling to make a point and it's completely unclear.  You just want to taunt it seems.  Fine.

I used to respect you as a sparring partner and reasonable dealer.  Sad to see those days are gone.
 
2012-12-24 09:30:17 AM

Diogenes: Nabb1: Diogenes: Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.

Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.

And you are arguing that security for children should be a luxury item. Strange days indeed.

Fallacy of insufficient options.  I'm saying we can have smart security for all without further bankrupting education.


What is your idea of "smart security"?
 
2012-12-24 09:47:15 AM
It's like the World Series of Intentional Obtuseness in this thread.
 
2012-12-24 09:49:59 AM

Diogenes: Then stop arguing that the choice by the parents to send their kids to this school is wrong.


Where did you come up with that? Really. I'm quite curious to see what kind of pretzel logic you used to come to that conclusion.

/You tell yourself you're not my kind
//But you don't even know your mind
///And you could have a change of heart

Diogenes: Honestly, you're struggling to make a point and it's completely unclear.


It's clearly stated in the headline.
 
2012-12-24 09:56:27 AM
If he's paying the tuition, he's paying for the armed guards.
The difference with LaPierre's proposal is that he's saying we need to have armed guards in every school, but is offering no solution to pay for said guards -- one newspaper estimates the cost for one guard per building in Pennsylvania to be up to $140,000,000 annually. Even if the guards were all volunteers who's paying for background checks, liability insurance, training, etc.?

I am *not* opposed to the concept of increased school security. I'd even pay higher property taxes to improve that security. But, here in PA there's a law that requires every school property tax hike above the rate of inflation to be approved via voter referendum. To date there have been 13 such votes, and to date exactly one has passed -- plus, with federal money running out and state-level budget cuts something like 20,000 teachers/support staff have already been fired.
 
2012-12-24 09:57:14 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Diogenes: Then stop arguing that the choice by the parents to send their kids to this school is wrong.

Where did you come up with that? Really. I'm quite curious to see what kind of pretzel logic you used to come to that conclusion.

/You tell yourself you're not my kind
//But you don't even know your mind
///And you could have a change of heart

Diogenes: Honestly, you're struggling to make a point and it's completely unclear.

It's clearly stated in the headline.


I'm sorry I even tried.  You made it abundantly clear about two weeks ago that homosexuals have no valid input on public policy.  I'll take my comments back to the closet.  Sorry to bother.
 
2012-12-24 09:57:25 AM

sigdiamond2000: It's like the World Series of Intentional Obtuseness in this thread.


And there will be people calling other people names soon.
 
2012-12-24 09:59:04 AM
Oh, it's a private school?  Oh, it' the same school that the President's kids go to, and presumably has more security because of that?  Yawn.

That's right folks.  You can't pay for something with your own money unless you also think everybody should have that and pay for it with taxpayer money.  Interesting seeing the right wing making that argument this time though.
 
2012-12-24 10:08:52 AM

Diogenes: You made it abundantly clear about two weeks ago that homosexuals have no valid input on public policy.


Eh?
 
2012-12-24 10:09:00 AM
Those guards are to keep out poor children and kids whose parents don't have the right connections, big difference
 
2012-12-24 10:09:54 AM
Gee, I wonder why a school where a lot of famous children including the President's daughters attend might have heightened security.
 
2012-12-24 10:10:21 AM
Oh, I remember now! Heh. Day-em! You really are good at the pretzel logic.
 
2012-12-24 10:13:41 AM

serial_crusher: Oh, it's a private school?  Oh, it' the same school that the President's kids go to, and presumably has more security because of that?  Yawn.

That's right folks.  You can't pay for something with your own money unless you also think everybody should have that and pay for it with taxpayer money.  Interesting seeing the right wing making that argument this time though.


I know it must be frustrating when people whom you disagree with seem not to have opinions that match your pre-conceived notions of what their opinions should be based on your concept of a particular ideology, but it must be doubly frustrating when you have missed the point entirely.
 
2012-12-24 10:16:20 AM
I'm sure all you conservatives will support increased taxes to provide armed security for all public schools.

Right?

Right?
 
2012-12-24 10:17:51 AM

coco ebert: I'm sure all you conservatives will support increased taxes to provide armed security for all public schools.

Right?

Right?


Borrow-and-spend Republicans? Unlikely.
 
2012-12-24 10:18:44 AM
I'm also amused by the sudden interest by conservatives in educational equality and mental health funding.

GTFO with that sh*t.
 
2012-12-24 10:21:19 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Oh, I remember now! Heh. Day-em! You really are good at the pretzel logic.


Sussing out yours is quite difficult, sometimes.
 
2012-12-24 10:26:02 AM

coco ebert: I'm sure all you conservatives will support increased taxes to provide armed security for all public schools.

Right?

Right?


We can just take all the money out of Medicare and put it towards the armed guards. Isn't the children's safety much more important than their health?
 
2012-12-24 10:26:14 AM
It's time once again for conservatives to demand wholeheartedly for something essential to keeping children safe that not a single one of them ever thought about or said we needed before Friday.
 
2012-12-24 10:26:53 AM
Sooooo.... by this logic, there should be a draft - after all, the Iraq war was a bad thing because those who advocated going to war did not in fact send their own children.  Right?
 
2012-12-24 10:28:02 AM
A wealthy man, a media figure, thinks some gun NUT might target his kids? I mean, it's not like they're FIREMEN or anything...
 
2012-12-24 10:46:01 AM

coco ebert: I'm also amused by the sudden interest by conservatives in educational equality and mental health funding.

GTFO with that sh*t.


HOW DARE ANYONE NOT HAVE THE OPINIONS I WANT THEM TO HAVE ON EVERY ISSUE!
 
2012-12-24 10:50:37 AM

Nabb1: coco ebert: I'm also amused by the sudden interest by conservatives in educational equality and mental health funding.

GTFO with that sh*t.

HOW DARE ANYONE NOT HAVE THE OPINIONS I WANT THEM TO HAVE ON EVERY ISSUE!


I don't care about people not sharing my views on issues, but sudden flip flops like that are just farking unbelievable to me. Have some consistency for chrissakes.
 
2012-12-24 10:51:59 AM
Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.
 
2012-12-24 10:53:22 AM

Nabb1: coco ebert: I'm also amused by the sudden interest by conservatives in educational equality and mental health funding.

GTFO with that sh*t.

HOW DARE ANYONE NOT HAVE THE OPINIONS I WANT THEM TO HAVE ON EVERY ISSUE!


Right, no possibility it's a disingenuous sudden concern for mental health to attempt to keep everyone away from gun control.
 
2012-12-24 10:54:34 AM

coco ebert: but sudden flip flops like that are just farking unbelievable to me. Have some consistency for chrissakes.


Their only consistency is to support the GOP's position.  Which is why people who had never suggested armed guards before are suddenly pretending it is the only solution to this problem.  It's a good way to find the talking point shills, since they're the only ones who are defending this idea that none of them ever had.
 
2012-12-24 10:56:13 AM

kxs401: Right, no possibility it's a disingenuous sudden concern for mental health to attempt to keep everyone away from gun control.


Good heavens. Would they really do that?
 
2012-12-24 10:59:34 AM
Do as I say . . .

/I recall that oprah's guards are well-armed . . .
 
2012-12-24 11:04:16 AM

what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.


The Republican's will figure out a way to make the middle class shoulder the costs of this, like they always do.
 
2012-12-24 11:05:23 AM
*Republicans

My apologies for the unnecessary apostrophe.
 
2012-12-24 11:06:49 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: If he's paying the tuition, he's paying for the armed guards.
The difference with LaPierre's proposal is that he's saying we need to have armed guards in every school, but is offering no solution to pay for said guards -- one newspaper estimates the cost for one guard per building in Pennsylvania to be up to $140,000,000 annually. Even if the guards were all volunteers who's paying for background checks, liability insurance, training, etc.?

I am *not* opposed to the concept of increased school security. I'd even pay higher property taxes to improve that security. But, here in PA there's a law that requires every school property tax hike above the rate of inflation to be approved via voter referendum. To date there have been 13 such votes, and to date exactly one has passed -- plus, with federal money running out and state-level budget cuts something like 20,000 teachers/support staff have already been fired.


Yeah, it very interesting that the no new taxes crowd is so into this proposal. Even crappy security guards with crappy guns don't come free.
 
2012-12-24 11:10:28 AM

kxs401: Nabb1: coco ebert: I'm also amused by the sudden interest by conservatives in educational equality and mental health funding.

GTFO with that sh*t.

HOW DARE ANYONE NOT HAVE THE OPINIONS I WANT THEM TO HAVE ON EVERY ISSUE!

Right, no possibility it's a disingenuous sudden concern for mental health to attempt to keep everyone away from gun control.


I don't know what other people's motives may be, nor do I care, but I have been an advocate of reforming our mental health care system since I worked in a juvenile law clinic in the 1990's.
 
2012-12-24 11:10:45 AM
Also, since the theme of the the thread seems to be a pointless and incorrect gotcha: Who under the age of 60 gives a Fark about David Gregory?
 
2012-12-24 11:12:35 AM
According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

So we don't know if the security are actually armed or not, but we'll just ignore that for the purposes of our article. That's some good investigative reporting there, Lou.
 
2012-12-24 11:13:06 AM

what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.


There's that or figure out what your most important budgetary priorities are.  But, obviously that's never going to happen.
 
2012-12-24 11:13:16 AM
Stalky little stalkers, these rightards are.
 
2012-12-24 11:13:28 AM

Nabb1: coco ebert: I'm also amused by the sudden interest by conservatives in educational equality and mental health funding.

GTFO with that sh*t.

HOW DARE ANYONE NOT HAVE THE OPINIONS I WANT THEM TO HAVE ON EVERY ISSUE!


Way to miss the point.
 
2012-12-24 11:15:19 AM

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


How many attempts have they thwarted, as opposed to how many "gun-free zones" have been shot up?
 
2012-12-24 11:15:27 AM
The same David Gregory that possessed a 30 round magazine on television in Washington D.C. and hasn't been charged with D.C.'s strict magazine capacity limit law yet?

/go figure
//obviously the entire newsroom was at risk while it was there
 
2012-12-24 11:17:20 AM

Nabb1: Of course it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to waste time with anything like one or two police officers assigned detail or anything like that. Look, banks need armed guards. Malls need armed guards. Pro sports events need armed guards. These are things we value. It's all about priorities.


Malls do not need armed guards and they usually don't have them.
 
2012-12-24 11:17:22 AM

St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.

.
wut?
 
2012-12-24 11:17:25 AM
Chicago has had police at high schools since like the past 20 years
/uniforms and metal detectors for like 10-15
 
2012-12-24 11:18:22 AM
Tax money set aside for installing a panic button alongside fire alarms in every school, regulated by similar laws as the fire alarms. Hit one button for the fire alarm. Hit the one right next to it for the panic button.

Crazy gunman (or other criminals that would warrant the use of hitting that button) show up, someone hits the button -- signal is sent directly to the local police who send the SWAT team. This is different from simply calling the cops. You hit the panic button and you know that lives are at stake.

We don't need a fire engine parked outside the school all the time. We don't need armed guards parked outside either.

We also can't 100% avoid these attacks, but we can do everything we can, and do it efficiently and financially viable.

So, yeah. Panic buttons in schools. Cheaper than armed guards.
 
2012-12-24 11:19:28 AM

moothemagiccow: Nabb1: Of course it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to waste time with anything like one or two police officers assigned detail or anything like that. Look, banks need armed guards. Malls need armed guards. Pro sports events need armed guards. These are things we value. It's all about priorities.

Malls do not need armed guards and they usually don't have them.


Our malls are patrolled by off-duty cops/sheriff's deputies working detail.  YMMV.
 
2012-12-24 11:19:52 AM
So, the hypocracy and duplicity is alive and well in the Media.
This is my suprised face.

People, NONE of these talking heads really believe their own derp. They will Nanny you right into the pens and happily take their blood money from the New Orderlies.

/we can deport a few, start w/ Piers Morgan.
 
2012-12-24 11:20:02 AM
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-24 11:20:41 AM
If you're advocating armed security in schools, but not at least a security officer in every CLASSROOM, you're a disingenuous piece of shiat. Seriously, one officer in a school? People will just shoot up the 2nd floor instead of the 1st.
 
2012-12-24 11:22:28 AM
I've solved the problem...

No more gun worries... no more bomb scares... just bliss

Your kids are safe now.. thanks to the new security team put into place in schools....

www.dziennik.com

/your welcome
 
2012-12-24 11:22:46 AM

debug: According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

So we don't know if the security are actually armed or not, but we'll just ignore that for the purposes of our article. That's some good investigative reporting there, Lou.


There is also a Secret Service detail, which is armed. Clearly the government believes that armed guards protect important people.

With that out of the way, if I have a choice between putting an armed guard at my child's school or investing in better mental health care for the community, I'm going for the health care. It may be a good idea to arm the principal, but that should also be a decision left to the local school district. And I stress the word may.
 
2012-12-24 11:23:03 AM

david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
.
wut?


Google is your friend.
 
2012-12-24 11:24:12 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: BunkyBrewman: Security guards at the school where Obama's kids attend?

TFA mentions that this is not counting the SS detail.


It also presumes these people are armed because of their position. School police where I live (near Atlanta) are armed but not with firearms.
 
2012-12-24 11:25:37 AM

Nabb1: Some children are more important than others, submitter. It's a fact of life.


Yup. Guns as for the David Gregorys of the world, not for the goyim. Remember the lesson of WW2: "Never again... to us"
 
2012-12-24 11:25:41 AM

Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning


So the fact he also waved around a weapon magazine that is illegal in Washington, D.C. on air while in a D.C. TV studio should also be overlooked.

What's also amusing, is that if we change the subject to abortion, change the channel to Fox News, you'd be here right now ranting against everything social Conservatives stand for as a little girl who had her dolly taken away.

Don't claim to the "rational" faction of American politics. That imaginary crown was sacrificed decades ago.
 
2012-12-24 11:25:56 AM
Well, this information is surely of consequence. I am really interested about when a reporter is hypocritical for chastising a lobbyist on a subject neither of them know anything about.
 
2012-12-24 11:26:27 AM
So every school hires armed security guards, inflates the costs, and then some kid gets shot accidentally and we have the debate over WTF are armed security guards doing in our schools. Brilliant!
 
2012-12-24 11:26:56 AM
What part of "social elite" don't you understand, subby?

/The rich aren't like you.
 
2012-12-24 11:27:04 AM

It's Me Bender: Yup. Guns as for the David Gregorys of the world, not for the goyim. Remember the lesson of WW2: "Never again... to us"


Come out of hiding... America is ready for "Lethal Weapon 5"
 
2012-12-24 11:27:20 AM

coco ebert: I'm also amused by the sudden interest by conservatives in educational equality and mental health funding.

GTFO with that sh*t.


I think they have been worried for years about the mentally ill, Progressives, and Democrats, but I'm repeating myself.
 
2012-12-24 11:27:42 AM

Nabb1: what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.

There's that or figure out what your most important budgetary priorities are.  But, obviously that's never going to happen.


Sure, but the amount of money it would take to hire a security guard in every school would mean firing a teacher or two. And most schools need more teachers, not fewer.

Also, I don't think armed security guards would make a difference. That guy would just be the first target.
 
2012-12-24 11:27:48 AM
so they're assuming the are armed? We have security guards in my school as well. They're unarmed and not too much more then traffic directors of kids and cars and babysitters of hallways
 
2012-12-24 11:28:03 AM

Fart_Machine: So every school hires armed security guards, inflates the costs, and then some kid gets shot accidentally and we have the debate over WTF are armed security guards doing in our schools. Brilliant!


Won't be an issue... we just get highly trained professionals to serve as armed guards at schools for the 1% and say "Fark it" for the rest.

/ problem solved
 
2012-12-24 11:28:05 AM

St_Francis_P: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
.
wut?

Google is your friend.


.
Ahh, thanks. A term invented by Media Matters, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros propaganda project. I take it you subscribe to that insane shiat?
 
2012-12-24 11:28:22 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


yep they are. And more important than mine too.
 
2012-12-24 11:28:24 AM
I'm Taxed Enough Already, unless it's tax hikes for guns in schools.
 
2012-12-24 11:28:31 AM
What does the fact that his kids go to a school that has armed security have to do with the argument he was making? Was he arguing against armed security at schools? No he wasn't. The point he was making is that having an armed security guard at the school might not have stopped this from happening, like it didn't stop other mass shootings.This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Anybody trying to make a big deal over where he sends his kids to school and trying to use it to somehow discredit his point is an idiot.
 
2012-12-24 11:28:33 AM
Incidentally here in PA the governor was on the "we need to fund mental health better" talking point very early -- so early that none of his staff remembered to tell him that his last two budgets drastically reduced funding for mental health services.

But, for a day he got positive press pretending he was doing something, so that's all that *really* matters.
 
2012-12-24 11:28:55 AM

MassAsster: I've solved the problem...

No more gun worries... no more bomb scares... just bliss

Your kids are safe now.. thanks to the new security team put into place in schools....

[www.dziennik.com image 530x298]

/your welcome


You probably have no idea how close we came to arming the TSOs. Fortunately, it was just too expensive to train them, so no. The first iteration of hires cost $55K each and they quit at a 35% rate.
Granted that was with the first iteration of hires, before TSA found out you can't hire enough good citizens to do the job.
The pizza box hires would have been some fun with guns, yes?
 
2012-12-24 11:29:02 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


Good to see you completely missing the point...again, for the upteenth time.
 
2012-12-24 11:29:15 AM

david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
.
wut?

Google is your friend.

.
Ahh, thanks. A term invented by Media Matters, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros propaganda project. I take it you subscribe to that insane shiat?


You link to Rense.com. Now tell us how the mind control chemicals get into contrails.
 
2012-12-24 11:29:29 AM

coco ebert: I'm sure all you conservatives will support increased taxes to provide armed security for all public schools.

Right?

Right?


Give it a week or two. As this "debate" evolves, pretty soon it will be the fault of the teachers' unions that we can't afford proper school security.

Although if you're lucky, this thread has a couple of douches that will probably go there just to get bites.
 
2012-12-24 11:29:41 AM

Tymast: so they're assuming the are armed? We have security guards in my school as well. They're unarmed and not too much more then traffic directors of kids and cars and babysitters of hallways


So your school pays the hall monitors? Sounds like a waste of cash to me.

Just pick some juniors to do it, give them a letter of recommendation for when the go to State U, and save yourself $28K a head.
 
2012-12-24 11:29:42 AM

david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
.
wut?

Google is your friend.

.
Ahh, thanks. A term invented by Media Matters, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros propaganda project. I take it you subscribe to that insane shiat?


David Frum seems to be the main exponent. Call him crazy if you want.
 
2012-12-24 11:30:02 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: A wealthy man, a media figure, thinks some gun NUT might target his kids? I mean, it's not like they're FIREMEN or anything...


It isn't like these folks are threatening violence if another AWB goes into effect or anything. Oh...
 
2012-12-24 11:30:09 AM

SilentStrider: NRA- All pets require litterboxes!

David Gregory- no, not all pets need litterboxes.

NRA-OMG but you have litterboxes for your cats! That means you're a hypocrite, Michael Moore has to be put to death by firing squad, and Sarah Palin is the head of the Department of Education!

Rational people- *facepalm*


Done in...eleventy posts.
 
2012-12-24 11:30:27 AM
Wait, David Gregory's kids go to school on Sunday?
 
2012-12-24 11:30:36 AM
Why were his kids at school on a Sunday?
 
2012-12-24 11:31:03 AM
Proposing armed guards in every school was not meant as a serious solution.  It was a red herring to deflect the conversation away from the broader issue of gun violence in America.  In other words, LaPierre was trolling.

And judging from the response in the media and threads like this one, successful troll was very, very successful.
 
2012-12-24 11:31:37 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Incidentally here in PA the governor was on the "we need to fund mental health better" talking point very early -- so early that none of his staff remembered to tell him that his last two budgets drastically reduced funding for mental health services.

But, for a day he got positive press pretending he was doing something, so that's all that *really* matters.


Corbett is easy... we just scrounge up $2,000 and take him out for a three-day weekend somewhere and he'll do what we want.

I appreciate cheap polticians...
 
2012-12-24 11:31:53 AM

born_yesterday: coco ebert: I'm sure all you conservatives will support increased taxes to provide armed security for all public schools.

Right?

Right?

Give it a week or two. As this "debate" evolves, pretty soon it will be the fault of the teachers' unions that we can't afford proper school security.

Although if you're lucky, this thread has a couple of douches that will probably go there just to get bites.


I'm actually surprised we haven't seen that talking point yet. "Greedy teachers and unions killed those 20 kids!"
 
2012-12-24 11:32:00 AM

Tymast: so they're assuming the are armed? We have security guards in my school as well. They're unarmed and not too much more then traffic directors of kids and cars and babysitters of hallways


If you train them well, they can be very effective. They will not be facing trained combatants.
I went to 'Nam unarmed and still stand, with a limp, but,,

People, calm down and try to get the hysteria under control.
 
2012-12-24 11:33:10 AM

verbaltoxin: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
.
wut?

Google is your friend.

.
Ahh, thanks. A term invented by Media Matters, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros propaganda project. I take it you subscribe to that insane shiat?

You link to Rense.com. Now tell us how the mind control chemicals get into contrails.


.
I charge $165 p/hr if you want me to research for you and find the same article in Mother Jones.
 
2012-12-24 11:33:17 AM
Back on topic...

the point is, many are railing against the NRA for their suggestion that we should put armed guards in schools, yet they don't realize this security measure already exists in some schools. What's the harm? It will never stop all attacks but it will deter some.

Even Wellesley High School in Massachusetts has an armed security guard.
 
2012-12-24 11:33:18 AM

kxs401: Nabb1: coco ebert: I'm also amused by the sudden interest by conservatives in educational equality and mental health funding.

GTFO with that sh*t.

HOW DARE ANYONE NOT HAVE THE OPINIONS I WANT THEM TO HAVE ON EVERY ISSUE!

Right, no possibility it's a disingenuous sudden concern for mental health to attempt to keep everyone away from gun control.


Yeah, they're all like NOBAMACARE! YES MENTAL CARE! Next comes the WAIT...NEVER MIND.

Their position should have been to put soldiers in the schools. That way the money goes to the Pentagon where God intended. Plus the dogfaces could help MAN UP our boy students.
 
2012-12-24 11:33:27 AM

snocone: MassAsster: I've solved the problem...

No more gun worries... no more bomb scares... just bliss

Your kids are safe now.. thanks to the new security team put into place in schools....

[www.dziennik.com image 530x298]

/your welcome

You probably have no idea how close we came to arming the TSOs. Fortunately, it was just too expensive to train them, so no. The first iteration of hires cost $55K each and they quit at a 35% rate.
Granted that was with the first iteration of hires, before TSA found out you can't hire enough good citizens to do the job.
The pizza box hires would have been some fun with guns, yes?


Who said anything about arming them?
They are doing a bang up job just as they are..

/entire idea was a sarcastic jab at the TSA by the way..
 
2012-12-24 11:33:45 AM

what_now: Also, I don't think armed security guards would make a difference. That guy would just be the first target.


Hmm... You seem like you've really thought one of these scenarios out.
 
2012-12-24 11:33:49 AM

gilgigamesh: Proposing armed guards in every school was not meant as a serious solution.  It was a red herring to deflect the conversation away from the broader issue of gun violence in America.  In other words, LaPierre was trolling.

And judging from the response in the media and threads like this one, successful troll was very, very successful.


It doesn't matter... we're just countertrolling... there is actually no such thing as actual political discourse in this country anymore.

I assume that all officials, politicians and military officers are "trolling" in each and every one of their public remarks.
 
2012-12-24 11:34:03 AM

olapbill: yep they are. And more important than mine too.


They're not more important than mine, thanks.
 
2012-12-24 11:34:14 AM
The only way to engage and neutralize an active shooter is to have a counter-shooter on the scene instantly. The only way to do that is to have armed guards on the scene beforehand. This is why I carry condoms with me all the time.
 
2012-12-24 11:34:22 AM
Don't see it often mentioned how things worked out for the armed guard at the 2005http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22224114/red-lake-grads -off e r-support-newtown-conn?source=pkg Red Lake School Shooting.
 
2012-12-24 11:35:30 AM

debug: According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

So we don't know if the security are actually armed or not, but we'll just ignore that for the purposes of our article. That's some good investigative reporting there, Lou.


Been waiting for this.  It's a farking Quaker school.  I doubt that even the SS is wandering the hallways armed.  More likely, they're deployed around  the perimeter of the campus like Dementors at Hogwarts were.
 
2012-12-24 11:35:47 AM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Fart_Machine: So every school hires armed security guards, inflates the costs, and then some kid gets shot accidentally and we have the debate over WTF are armed security guards doing in our schools. Brilliant!

Won't be an issue... we just get highly trained professionals to serve as armed guards at schools for the 1% and say "Fark it" for the rest.

/ problem solved


Most affluent school districts don't employ armed security guards.
 
2012-12-24 11:35:52 AM

david_gaithersburg: verbaltoxin: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
.
wut?

Google is your friend.

.
Ahh, thanks. A term invented by Media Matters, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros propaganda project. I take it you subscribe to that insane shiat?

You link to Rense.com. Now tell us how the mind control chemicals get into contrails.

.
I charge $165 p/hr if you want me to research for you and find the same article in Mother Jones.


Yeah, I'm sure Mother Jones has conspiracy theories like chemtrails and reptoids in it. So, seen any black helicopters lately?
 
2012-12-24 11:35:59 AM

gilgigamesh: Proposing armed guards in every school was not meant as a serious solution.  It was a red herring to deflect the conversation away from the broader issue of gun violence in America.  In other words, LaPierre was trolling.

And judging from the response in the media and threads like this one, successful troll was very, very successful.


An assault weapon ban isn't going to do much about gun violence, either.  Sure, it may make us all feel better, maybe the next shooter will only get 12 or 13 instead of a couple dozen.  I find it remarkable that people are barking about their own personal solution like they're all mutually exclusive.
 
2012-12-24 11:36:08 AM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: It doesn't matter... we're just countertrolling... there is actually no such thing as actual political discourse in this country anymore.


Well, in that case...

*throws monkey poop*
 
2012-12-24 11:36:14 AM

Wrongo: Don't see it often mentioned how things worked out for the armed guard at the 2005http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22224114/red-lake-grads -off e r-support-newtown-conn?source=pkg Red Lake School Shooting.


Or the fact that there was an armed guard at Columbine who shot at them.

Or the fact that not a single person was calling for armed guards in schools before Friday.
 
2012-12-24 11:36:48 AM
Total BS. IMO Gregory's point was only that all viable options might also include closing gun show loop holes and restricting magazine sizes. I believe he made no real point that added security was a poor idea, just that not discussing others was a "convenient" stance. It's been 24 hours and I dnrtfa so my memory may be off.
 
2012-12-24 11:36:59 AM
oblig

www.sarasota.k12.fl.us
 
2012-12-24 11:37:21 AM
Why would his kids be in school on a sunday?
 
2012-12-24 11:37:35 AM

Fart_Machine: Most affluent school districts don't employ armed security guards.


True... I can name at least one.
 
2012-12-24 11:37:46 AM

GAT_00: Or the fact that not a single person was calling for armed guards in schools before Friday.

 
2012-12-24 11:38:11 AM
We had an armed plainsclothes cop in my HS in the early 1970s. What's the big deal? Now they call them "Resource Officers". WTF is that about?
 
2012-12-24 11:39:08 AM
I'm no expert in Quaker values or Quaker schools, but really

1. How likely is it that regular school security employees in a Quaker school are armed?

2. The Security department list cited to in the article lists 11 people. All of those listed as Police Officers are either listed as "on-call special police officers" or just "special police officers." What's that?

3. So the heck what if someone who does not think armed guards will help prevent school shooters sends his kids to a school that has security guards -- even armed ones? It seems to me that such a factor would be pretty low on the list of factors many parents would consider in choosing a school.
 
2012-12-24 11:39:14 AM

cman: Only children of the elite deserve schools with gun-carrying protectors.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
"Since you've already attended public school, we're assuming you've already had experience with small arms."
 
2012-12-24 11:39:17 AM

Nabb1: I find it remarkable that people are barking about their own personal solution like they're all mutually exclusive.


This, ironically, may be a response to reality. What chance is there that more than one solution to any problem will be embraced by governments, the media, AND the public? It's a competition for attention, influence and power. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.
 
2012-12-24 11:39:18 AM
Yawn. *rolls eyes*
 
2012-12-24 11:39:27 AM

Nabb1: what_now: Also, I don't think armed security guards would make a difference. That guy would just be the first target.

Hmm... You seem like you've really thought one of these scenarios out.


I've worked in financial aid at high stress graduate schools for 10 years, and in my former job, one of my students pushed me into a wall for giving him bad news and another one murdered a hooker.

You don't think I've worried about this?
 
2012-12-24 11:39:54 AM
Wait a minute, I thought Obama's kids were going to go to public school?
Didn't he make that statement way back when?
Looked it up on Google:
"while public schools were considered, the Obamas felt that a private school was in the best interest of their children"
With security, better teachers, better environment and a hot lunch every day and all yours for $34,000 / year (each)
Now I feel that I have failed my children........
 
2012-12-24 11:40:00 AM
It's a private school.

Private.
 
2012-12-24 11:40:05 AM
The intentionally obtuse contrarian BS is damn near suffocating in this thread.

Whatever it takes to avoid discussing reasonable gun control legislation, I guess.
 
2012-12-24 11:40:06 AM
So, conservatives are going to pour a lot of funding into public schools so they're more like Sidwell Friends?

img689.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 11:40:10 AM

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Fart_Machine: Most affluent school districts don't employ armed security guards.

True... I can name at least one.


You're most likely to find them in poorer districts with a higher crime rate.
 
2012-12-24 11:40:15 AM

verbaltoxin: david_gaithersburg: verbaltoxin: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
.
wut?

Google is your friend.

.
Ahh, thanks. A term invented by Media Matters, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros propaganda project. I take it you subscribe to that insane shiat?

You link to Rense.com. Now tell us how the mind control chemicals get into contrails.

.
I charge $165 p/hr if you want me to research for you and find the same article in Mother Jones.

Yeah, I'm sure Mother Jones has conspiracy theories like chemtrails and reptoids in it. So, seen any black helicopters lately?


My god man, stop embarrassing yourself by putting your retardedness on full display. Here, you get this one for free. Link
 
2012-12-24 11:40:29 AM

angryjd: Well, this information is surely of consequence. I am really interested about when a reporter is hypocritical for chastising a lobbyist on a subject neither of them know anything about.


This is very important for some unspecified reason!
 
2012-12-24 11:40:31 AM

IkonOlator: 3. So the heck what if someone who does not think armed guards will help prevent school shooters sends his kids to a school that has security guards -- even armed ones? It seems to me that such a factor would be pretty low on the list of factors many parents would consider in choosing a school.


A pretty low factor indeed, at least before the inducement of mass hysteria by means of a serious tragedy.
 
2012-12-24 11:40:43 AM

StubbornYankee: Back on topic...

the point is, many are railing against the NRA for their suggestion that we should put armed guards in schools, yet they don't realize this security measure already exists in some schools. What's the harm? It will never stop all attacks but it will deter some.

Even Wellesley High School in Massachusetts has an armed security guard.


No, the problem is with suggesting that putting armed guards in all schools is some sort of panacea that means we don't need to think or talk about gun control.

Some schools, like ones in high crime areas or ones where the president's daughters go to school, clearly need guards. Putting armed guards in all schools, however, still needs to be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. And it needs to be discussed in conjunction with gun control and better mental health care.
 
2012-12-24 11:40:49 AM

kxs401: Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


Yes. The fake outrage makes people feel special. It is not even remotely unique to Republicans.

moothemagiccow: Malls do not need armed guards and they usually don't have them.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-24 11:41:01 AM

IkonOlator: I'm no expert in Quaker values or Quaker schools, but really

1. How likely is it that regular school security employees in a Quaker school are armed?

2. The Security department list cited to in the article lists 11 people. All of those listed as Police Officers are either listed as "on-call special police officers" or just "special police officers." What's that?

3. So the heck what if someone who does not think armed guards will help prevent school shooters sends his kids to a school that has security guards -- even armed ones? It seems to me that such a factor would be pretty low on the list of factors many parents would consider in choosing a school.


4. Oh, and why didn't the journalist bother to contact the school or the security officers to ask the fundamental question: are you armed at school????????????????????????? (Of course, the whole piece was journalistic nonsense, but if it was at all serious.................)
 
2012-12-24 11:41:05 AM

Nabb1: An assault weapon ban isn't going to do much about gun violence, either.  Sure, it may make us all feel better, maybe the next shooter will only get 12 or 13 instead of a couple dozen.  I find it remarkable that people are barking about their own personal solution like they're all mutually exclusive.


I tend to agree.  I think maybe a ban combined with a buy back for high capacity clips would be a good idea.  As well as registration and licensing for gun ownership.

Anyway, we aren't talking about solutions to gun violence anymore, the conversation has been successfully diverted to nonsense.  Even assuming armed guards would deter a mass school shooting (a BIG assumption), then the next shooter will just pick a church or other soft target.  Unless we are going to put armed guards everywhere, I don't see what the point of this discussion is.

Except, of course, "buy more guns".  Which was exactly LaPierre's intention with his crazy talk.
 
2012-12-24 11:41:14 AM

IkonOlator: I'm no expert in Quaker values or Quaker schools, but really

1. How likely is it that regular school security employees in a Quaker school are armed?

i.l.cnn.net

Also a Quaker.
 
2012-12-24 11:41:20 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Diogenes: Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.

It's called "choice". Maybe you've heard that word used in other discussions regarding children.


Ok, that's funny
 
2012-12-24 11:41:22 AM

StubbornYankee: Back on topic...

the point is, many are railing against the NRA for their suggestion that we should put armed guards in schools, yet they don't realize this security measure already exists in some schools. What's the harm? It will never stop all attacks but it will deter some.

Even Wellesley High School in Massachusetts has an armed security guard.


No. People are railing against the NRA for suggesting that to prevent more killings like this that all we need is to put armed guards in schools and not to take steps to keep people that are mentally unbalanced from getting guns.
 
2012-12-24 11:42:03 AM

MassAsster: snocone: MassAsster: I've solved the problem...

No more gun worries... no more bomb scares... just bliss

Your kids are safe now.. thanks to the new security team put into place in schools....

[www.dziennik.com image 530x298]

/your welcome

You probably have no idea how close we came to arming the TSOs. Fortunately, it was just too expensive to train them, so no. The first iteration of hires cost $55K each and they quit at a 35% rate.
Granted that was with the first iteration of hires, before TSA found out you can't hire enough good citizens to do the job.
The pizza box hires would have been some fun with guns, yes?

Who said anything about arming them?
They are doing a bang up job just as they are..

/entire idea was a sarcastic jab at the TSA by the way..



Oh, I am all, TSA MUST DIE, but the GOP that created the TSA wanted their own little armed army in the beginning.

Bottom line, the Govenment, The Rich and The Powerful fully understand, utilize and rely on guns. It would be easier if you did not have any, but that is fantasy. You being the unwashed masses of slave citizens not Rich, Powerful or Federal. GUNS ARE REAL AND MANY.

Folks, this is what class warfare looks like up close.
 
2012-12-24 11:42:38 AM

david_gaithersburg: A term invented by Media Matters, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros propaganda project. I take it you subscribe to that insane shiat?


BOOGAH BOOGAH GEORGE SOROS.

I love the spin that quoting people IN CONTEXT, with transcripts, audio & video is now propaganda.
 
2012-12-24 11:43:37 AM

ongbok: This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.


This is untrue. The NRA has - to my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.
 
2012-12-24 11:44:41 AM

what_now: Nabb1: what_now: Also, I don't think armed security guards would make a difference. That guy would just be the first target.

Hmm... You seem like you've really thought one of these scenarios out.

I've worked in financial aid at high stress graduate schools for 10 years, and in my former job, one of my students pushed me into a wall for giving him bad news and another one murdered a hooker.

You don't think I've worried about this?


Sure, but to act as though a security presence would be worthless seems like utter nonsense.  It may not prevent it, but it may, and it's better than nothing. And as I said, thinking some assault weapons ban or banning high-capacity magazines is going to stop another school shooting or other act of mass violence is nonsense. That part is all political opportunism and we need to admit it.  There's also nothing that says you can't put some gun restrictions in place AND increase security in schools AND work on overhauling the long deplorable state of our mental health resources AND if you have issues with the money, then maybe we just need to re-examine our budgetary priorities for a change.
 
2012-12-24 11:45:11 AM

ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings


Like which ones?
 
2012-12-24 11:45:13 AM
VA Tech has its own police force, that didn't stop the guy that shot 20some people on its campus.
 
2012-12-24 11:45:28 AM

rufus-t-firefly: So, conservatives are going to pour a lot of funding into public schools so they're more like Sidwell Friends?

[img689.imageshack.us image 379x214]


Nope.  They'd insist the money for this come out of existing school budgets.  The average school cop is paid twice what the average teacher is paid.
 
2012-12-24 11:45:30 AM
I really hate linking Breitbart because they're mostly a bunch of nut jobs but they try to represent a different viewpoint from MSN/CNN so here's another one about David Gregory: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/23/NBC-s-Gregory-Viola tes-DC-Gun-Laws-on-Meet-The-Press
 
2012-12-24 11:45:35 AM

Nabb1: gilgigamesh: Proposing armed guards in every school was not meant as a serious solution.  It was a red herring to deflect the conversation away from the broader issue of gun violence in America.  In other words, LaPierre was trolling.

And judging from the response in the media and threads like this one, successful troll was very, very successful.

An assault weapon ban isn't going to do much about gun violence, either.  Sure, it may make us all feel better, maybe the next shooter will only get 12 or 13 instead of a couple dozen.  I find it remarkable that people are barking about their own personal solution like they're all mutually exclusive.


So rather than try to persuade anyone about a practical solution that makes more sense than "armed guards everywhere" or "take all the guns". You thought dropping a massive turd in the thread would make things better somehow?
 
2012-12-24 11:45:40 AM

LargeCanine: my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.


Minus that one year they ran that "arm the mentally unstable" campaign, but that turned out to be a typo.
 
2012-12-24 11:45:55 AM
I am definately not a right winger, but I can't argue with the logic. We protect every other damned thing with guns, and somehow you think ypur precious snowflake is somehow never going to know about these incidents. Pull your head out of your ass, the cat is out of the bag, so deal with it. The callousness of those who don't recognize the need for a change in how guns are purchased and the hypocrasy of those who are protected by armed guards is sickening.
 
2012-12-24 11:46:03 AM

s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?


Here's another guy who keeps ignoring Columbine.
 
2012-12-24 11:46:18 AM

ongbok: StubbornYankee: Back on topic...

the point is, many are railing against the NRA for their suggestion that we should put armed guards in schools, yet they don't realize this security measure already exists in some schools. What's the harm? It will never stop all attacks but it will deter some.

Even Wellesley High School in Massachusetts has an armed security guard.

No. People are railing against the NRA for suggesting that to prevent more killings like this that all we need is to put armed guards in schools and not to take steps to keep people that are mentally unbalanced from getting guns.


The missed point is there will be more mass killings.
Say it with me, out loud.
Now focus.
The Frightened and Afeared are vulnerable to the crap being fed to them. You have to stabilize these poor schlubs or lose another chunk of your Constitutional protection from your own government.
 
2012-12-24 11:46:20 AM

s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?


VA Tech, and apparently Columbine from what I have learned.
 
2012-12-24 11:46:38 AM

snocone: Oh, I am all, TSA MUST DIE, but the GOP that created the TSA wanted their own little armed army in the beginning.


Man, remember when the Democrats were dead-set against the TSA, and voted against renewing the Patriot Act, and then when Obama became President and the Democrats took over the House and Senate, they couldn't stop talking about how they were going to get rid of the TSA?  Good times, man.  Good times.
 
2012-12-24 11:46:38 AM

Fart_Machine: The_Gallant_Gallstone: Fart_Machine: Most affluent school districts don't employ armed security guards.

True... I can name at least one.

You're most likely to find them in poorer districts with a higher crime rate.


Yet most mass shootings occur in relatively peaceful middle class neighborhoods. Poor folks tend to kill each other one or two at a time, usually over money or vendettas.

/It seems to hint that we're worried about common neighborhood violence coming into the school from outside.
//Maybe more than what's going on inside.
 
2012-12-24 11:47:07 AM
April 16, 2000

WASHINGTON - Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.

"In our national struggle against youth violence we must not fail our children; our future depends on it," the president said in his weekly radio address.
...
Clinton announced $40 million in grants for 23 school districts that he said have found successful, comprehensive approaches to help troubled young people.

"These districts are bringing school nurses and counselors together to respond to warning signs like depression or bullying," Clinton said. "They are improving classroom security and expanding after-school and mentoring programs."

Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

"Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323
 
2012-12-24 11:47:17 AM
"According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed."

What...the....fark. The master journalists at the Standard can't even bother to find out whether the CRUX of their farkING ARTICLE is valid or not? I mean, I know it's a rag but this right here...this is the real thing. "We're right because we presume, without doing any investigating at all..."
 
2012-12-24 11:47:18 AM
I bet the school also spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on top-notch teachers that, beyond subject matter, are also able to understand children and provide a better learning environment. They probably have administrators that concern themselves with the school environment and searching out possible issues and resolving them instead of shuffling the kid on to a bus at 2:30 without giving him a second thought.

Let's do stuff like that at public schools before thinking a 60k rent-a-cop at every door will solve everything
 
2012-12-24 11:47:22 AM
There's also nothing that says you can't put some gun restrictions in place AND increase security in schools AND work on overhauling the long deplorable state of our mental health resources AND if you have issues with the money, then maybe we just need to re-examine our budgetary priorities for a change.

Yes. We need ALL of those things, but it won't happen until we stop listening to clowns like Wayne LaPierre, or indeed anyone who thinks there is an easy and simple solution.
 
2012-12-24 11:47:32 AM

moothemagiccow: VA Tech has its own police force, that didn't stop the guy that shot 20some people on its campus.


Columbine had an armed police officer on campus. He took 3 shots at Eric Harris. He missed.
 
2012-12-24 11:47:37 AM

Nabb1: It may not prevent it, but it may, and it's better than nothing.


Not really. In a limited budget situation where you can spend $100 on a gun or a pile of books, I'm picking the books if it's a school
 
2012-12-24 11:47:43 AM
This is the guy who also broke the DC gun laws by having that high capacity gun clip?

Typical left - the laws are for other people and security is good for my kids but not yours.
 
2012-12-24 11:48:03 AM

JesseL: April 16, 2000

WASHINGTON - Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.

"In our national struggle against youth violence we must not fail our children; our future depends on it," the president said in his weekly radio address.
...
Clinton announced $40 million in grants for 23 school districts that he said have found successful, comprehensive approaches to help troubled young people.

"These districts are bringing school nurses and counselors together to respond to warning signs like depression or bullying," Clinton said. "They are improving classroom security and expanding after-school and mentoring programs."

Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

"Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323


Nice.
 
2012-12-24 11:48:13 AM

david_gaithersburg: verbaltoxin: david_gaithersburg: verbaltoxin: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
.
wut?

Google is your friend.

.
Ahh, thanks. A term invented by Media Matters, a Hillary Clinton/George Soros propaganda project. I take it you subscribe to that insane shiat?

You link to Rense.com. Now tell us how the mind control chemicals get into contrails.

.
I charge $165 p/hr if you want me to research for you and find the same article in Mother Jones.

Yeah, I'm sure Mother Jones has conspiracy theories like chemtrails and reptoids in it. So, seen any black helicopters lately?

My god man, stop embarrassing yourself by putting your retardedness on full display. Here, you get this one for free. Link


The fark are you on about?
 
2012-12-24 11:49:16 AM

kxs401: Nabb1: kxs401: Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.

Oh, clearly. All Americans should get exactly the same level of day-to-day protection. That makes perfect sense.

Of course it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to waste time with anything like one or two police officers assigned detail or anything like that. Look, banks need armed guards. Malls need armed guards. Pro sports events need armed guards. These are things we value. It's all about priorities.

Argue that schools need armed guards if you'd like, but that's not the point this headline is trying to make. "Conservatives" are trying to present this situation as some sort of "HA! Gotcha!" Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't.


It's not? How many times has a private school been attacked and how many public schools have been attacked?
 
2012-12-24 11:49:56 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: This is the guy who also broke the DC gun laws by having that high capacity gun clip?

Typical left - the laws are for other people and security is good for my kids but not yours.


And the village idiot makes his appearance.

Show me where he said that schools shouldn't have armed security. Oh you know something, he didn't. He said that armed security alone won't prevent school shootings.
 
2012-12-24 11:50:11 AM

Nabb1: Sure, but to act as though a security presence would be worthless seems like utter nonsense. It may not prevent it, but it may, and it's better than nothing.


Actually, "better than nothing" isn't good enough without knowing how much it would cost. I know we like to say that human life is priceless, but if we spend money that, say, prevents 10 school shootings and saves 100 lives over ten years, but that money could have been spent on infrastructure upgrades that would have saved 1000 lives, is that money well spent?
 
2012-12-24 11:50:23 AM

bulldg4life: Let's do stuff like that at public schools before thinking a 60k rent-a-cop at every door will solve everything


Various local stories I've seen say those school resource officers make around $100k a year.
 
2012-12-24 11:50:42 AM
...and breaks DC law on national televsion:

D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 (b) says clips over 10 rounds...loaded or unloaded, in weapon or not, are verboten in the district...oops

But everyone knows that laws and opinions don't matter when you're on the teevee. Pandering at it's finest.

BTW...LaPierre is a tool as well.
 
2012-12-24 11:51:49 AM

GAT_00: rufus-t-firefly: So, conservatives are going to pour a lot of funding into public schools so they're more like Sidwell Friends?

[img689.imageshack.us image 379x214]

Nope.  They'd insist the money for this come out of existing school budgets.  The average school cop is paid twice what the average teacher is paid.


Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they REALLY want to help, since they're so strongly endorsing Sidwell Friends.

They want to make America's schools more like the ELITIST school that the Clintons sent and the Obamas send their kids to.

We can start with the guards, then move to the teacher pay, class size, etc.

I never thought a tragedy could make conservatives embrace something as liberal as education funding, but it's quite impressive.
 
2012-12-24 11:52:37 AM
Gotta admit, the NRA has a solid business plan.

Every time a gun gets used, more guns get sold.

If people aren't afraid enough of criminals to buy more guns, then they'll buy them because they think the government is going to take them away.
 
2012-12-24 11:52:54 AM

LargeCanine: ongbok: This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

This is untrue. The NRA has - to my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.


Nope. LaPierre refuses to implement more background checks or waiting periods.
 
2012-12-24 11:52:56 AM
To add, I find it incredibly humorous that...in the same breath as decrying a full out gun ban...people are proposing a similarly pie in the sky effort to solve everything.

Meanwhile, these threads are filled with dozens upon dozens of people asking for a moderated combination of solutions including gun control, security, and health issues.

Goddamn ideas like that are probably stupid.
 
2012-12-24 11:54:00 AM

St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message,.


hooooo not here buddy. The gun-totin' Jesus-lovin' Obama is a sekrit moosalem I really should be on prescription anti-psychotics South ate. that. shiat. up.
 
2012-12-24 11:54:25 AM
You lost me at NBC news. Leftist rag.

/Independent
 
2012-12-24 11:54:39 AM

Mrs.Sharpier: LargeCanine: ongbok: This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

This is untrue. The NRA has - to my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.

Nope. LaPierre refuses to implement more background checks or waiting periods.


But they pay lip service to wanting to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and isn't that what really matters?
 
2012-12-24 11:55:32 AM

GAT_00: Here's another guy who keeps ignoring Columbine.


There were armed guards on campus at Columbine?
 
2012-12-24 11:55:42 AM
Meh, my public high school installed an armed school resource officer who was an actual cop a few years after I graduated. He was there mostly because there was a lot of drug dealing going on at the school. After Columbine, the school board decided to keep him on staff.

I don't necessarily see why it is such an awful idea. A trained officer may not be able to save everyone but they may be able to mitigate the damage. Arming the teachers or administration is a ridiculous notion though.

Plus it would mean thousands of new jobs. Why do you hate job creation?
 
2012-12-24 11:56:36 AM
Was this the same interview where David Gregory brought a 30-round GI mag and waved it around? In Washington D.C? Where they are expressly forbidden by law?

And it is a tad hypocritical to attack Clinton's idea for cops in every school while you yourself send your kids to a school with armed guards.

/gun control advocates: Literally, criminally stupid when it comes to guns.
//also think that only certain kind$ of people deserve protection
 
2012-12-24 11:56:48 AM

ongbok: tenpoundsofcheese: This is the guy who also broke the DC gun laws by having that high capacity gun clip?

Typical left - the laws are for other people and security is good for my kids but not yours.

And the village idiot makes his appearance.
Thank you for announcing your presence.

Show me where he said that schools shouldn't have armed security. Oh you know something, he didn't. He said that armed security alone won't prevent school shootings.
The guy breaks the law on national TV and you want to give him a pass?  Pathetic.
Of course no one thing will prevent any school shootings, that is a typical journalist garbage statement when they have an agenda:  "well, you know that if you do X, it won't solve the problem completely, so you shouldn't do X".

 
2012-12-24 11:57:48 AM

bulldg4life: To add, I find it incredibly humorous that...in the same breath as decrying a full out gun ban...people are proposing a similarly pie in the sky effort to solve everything.

Meanwhile, these threads are filled with dozens upon dozens of people asking for a moderated combination of solutions including gun control, security, and health issues.

Goddamn ideas like that are probably stupid.


Stupid? No. Impossible to discuss meaningfully given the state of public discourse today? Yes.

Realistic proposals aren't about realistic solutions. They're about getting people's attention so they don't get stomped like gumwads in the subway. This requires them to be butt-simple and give folks an emotional rush.
 
2012-12-24 11:58:01 AM

havocmike: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message,.

hooooo not here buddy. The gun-totin' Jesus-lovin' Obama is a sekrit moosalem I really should be on prescription anti-psychotics South ate. that. shiat. up.


Sure, but they were on board before, and will never abandon ship. The GOP keeps missing the vital point that you have to woo moderates to remain viable. And that's OK with me.
 
2012-12-24 11:58:05 AM

St_Francis_P: The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message


Even before LaPierre's comments, the public was aksing for armed guards at schools to protect children. I don;t know anyone who was outraged by this suggestion, which goes back to before Bill Clinton suggersted the same thing.

So yes, a lot of people reacted negatively to LaPierre, because, well, he's kinda a nut-job tool. But the public did not react very negatively to THIS part of his message.

(Though the gun-control advocates are apparantly constitutionaly required to react to any suggestion other than get rid of guns as if someone suggested we start murdering children.)
 
2012-12-24 11:58:32 AM

Mrs.Sharpier: LargeCanine: ongbok: This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

This is untrue. The NRA has - to my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.

Nope. LaPierre refuses to implement more background checks or waiting periods.


non sequitur
 
2012-12-24 11:58:52 AM

bulldg4life: To add, I find it incredibly humorous that...in the same breath as decrying a full out gun ban...people are proposing a similarly pie in the sky effort to solve everything.

Meanwhile, these threads are filled with dozens upon dozens of people asking for a moderated combination of solutions including gun control, security, and health issues.

Goddamn ideas like that are probably stupid.


Probably because political discourse in this country has been replaced by shouting matches and dick-waving contests by shallow-thinking demagogues.  Just my opinion, though.
 
2012-12-24 11:59:05 AM
Two Words: AMISH MAFIA
 
2012-12-24 11:59:07 AM

ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?

VA Tech, and apparently Columbine from what I have learned.


Columbine had an armed guard

Virginia Tech had a police force, and Ft Hood is a military base.
 
2012-12-24 11:59:08 AM

havocmike: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message,.

hooooo not here buddy. The gun-totin' Jesus-lovin' Obama is a sekrit moosalem I really should be on prescription anti-psychotics South ate. that. shiat. up.


Hmmm.. the people around me facepalmed and tried to pretend that press conference didn't happen
 
2012-12-24 12:00:27 PM

JRoo: Gotta admit, the NRA has a solid business plan.

Every time a gun gets used, more guns get sold.

If people aren't afraid enough of criminals to buy more guns, then they'll buy them because they think the government is going to take them away.


That WOULD be an awesome business plan if they only actually sold guns. Hey, maybe they could open a store.
 
2012-12-24 12:01:39 PM

LargeCanine: ongbok: This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

This is untrue. The NRA has - to my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.


"Advocating" something and actually supporting a solution are two different things.

LaPierre says they support a mental health database...but doesn't think loopholes are a big deal.

LAPIERRE: I'll tell you what would work. We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics. ... 23 states are still putting only a small number of records into the system and a lot of states are putting none. So when they go through the National Instant Check System and they go to try to screen out one of those lunatics, the records are not even in the system.

[...]

LAPIERRE: We have backed the National Instant Check system, we have backed putting anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent into the system. Now I know where you're going with this. They come up with this whole, "oh, it's a gun show loophole." There's not a gun show loophole. It's illegal for felons to do anything like that, to buy guns. What the anti-Second Amendment movement wants to do is put every gun sale in the country under the thumb of the federal government. Congress debated this at length. They said if you're a -- a hobbyist or collector, if someone in West Virginia, a hunter, wants to sell a gun to another hunter, they ought to be able to do it without being under the thumb of the federal government.
 
2012-12-24 12:01:41 PM

i upped my meds-up yours: bulldg4life: To add, I find it incredibly humorous that...in the same breath as decrying a full out gun ban...people are proposing a similarly pie in the sky effort to solve everything.

Meanwhile, these threads are filled with dozens upon dozens of people asking for a moderated combination of solutions including gun control, security, and health issues.

Goddamn ideas like that are probably stupid.

Stupid? No. Impossible to discuss meaningfully given the state of public discourse today? Yes.

Realistic proposals aren't about realistic solutions. They're about getting people's attention so they don't get stomped like gumwads in the subway. This requires them to be butt-simple and give folks an emotional rush.


Yes, it may be impossible to discuss... But that's because the head of the largest gun rights lobbyist group is screaming about ciolent video games and proposing ridiculous solutions instead of providing meaningful proposals.

And, it filters down to all the little minions that fill up threads like this with similarly stupid and meaningless trite.

If we consider Obama to be the "other side of the argument", then we see that his proposal combined three/four different ideas and a call to look at solutions and come to a compromise.
 
2012-12-24 12:01:42 PM

Mrs.Sharpier: LargeCanine: ongbok: This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

This is untrue. The NRA has - to my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.

Nope. LaPierre refuses to implement more background checks or waiting periods.


yeah about that

Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said his group is working closely with Democrats on new legislation that would make it easier for states to update and transmit records to the FBI involving residents who have been deemed mentally unfit to own a gun.


"If someone is adjudicated by a court of law to be mentally defective, a danger to themselves or others, are suicidal, they should be prohibited from owning a firearm and the record of that adjudication should be included in the background check," LaPierre told FOXNews.com.


"It has been the NRA's position for over two decades," he said.


Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269142,00.html#ixzz2FzQ6QL49
 
2012-12-24 12:01:44 PM

Nabb1: bulldg4life: To add, I find it incredibly humorous that...in the same breath as decrying a full out gun ban...people are proposing a similarly pie in the sky effort to solve everything.

Meanwhile, these threads are filled with dozens upon dozens of people asking for a moderated combination of solutions including gun control, security, and health issues.

Goddamn ideas like that are probably stupid.

Probably because political discourse in this country has been replaced by shouting matches and dick-waving contests by shallow-thinking demagogues.  Just my opinion, though.


Mine too, but I was probably tl;dr, so you're forgiven.
 
2012-12-24 12:02:34 PM

Nabb1: bulldg4life: To add, I find it incredibly humorous that...in the same breath as decrying a full out gun ban...people are proposing a similarly pie in the sky effort to solve everything.

Meanwhile, these threads are filled with dozens upon dozens of people asking for a moderated combination of solutions including gun control, security, and health issues.

Goddamn ideas like that are probably stupid.

Probably because political discourse in this country has been replaced by shouting matches and dick-waving contests by shallow-thinking demagogues.  Just my opinion, though.


In glad you're here to chan----

Wait no...you just felt like throwing shiat on the wall to point out how stupid the libs are...
 
2012-12-24 12:02:37 PM

bronyaur1: Sooooo.... by this logic, there should be a draft - after all, the Iraq war was a bad thing because those who advocated going to war did not in fact send their own children.  Right?


That's what Charlie rangel will tell you
 
2012-12-24 12:02:37 PM
 
2012-12-24 12:03:55 PM

bulldg4life: i upped my meds-up yours: bulldg4life: To add, I find it incredibly humorous that...in the same breath as decrying a full out gun ban...people are proposing a similarly pie in the sky effort to solve everything.

Meanwhile, these threads are filled with dozens upon dozens of people asking for a moderated combination of solutions including gun control, security, and health issues.

Goddamn ideas like that are probably stupid.

Stupid? No. Impossible to discuss meaningfully given the state of public discourse today? Yes.

Realistic proposals aren't about realistic solutions. They're about getting people's attention so they don't get stomped like gumwads in the subway. This requires them to be butt-simple and give folks an emotional rush.

Yes, it may be impossible to discuss... But that's because the head of the largest gun rights lobbyist group is screaming about ciolent video games and proposing ridiculous solutions instead of providing meaningful proposals.

And, it filters down to all the little minions that fill up threads like this with similarly stupid and meaningless trite.

If we consider Obama to be the "other side of the argument", then we see that his proposal combined three/four different ideas and a call to look at solutions and come to a compromise.


And has it not become a political gumwad in the subway? Is it not unsexy and tl-dr?
 
2012-12-24 12:04:28 PM

Fark It: Was this the same interview where David Gregory brought a 30-round GI mag and waved it around? In Washington D.C? Where they are expressly forbidden by law?

And it is a tad hypocritical to attack Clinton's idea for cops in every school while you yourself send your kids to a school with armed guards.

/gun control advocates: Literally, criminally stupid when it comes to guns.
//also think that only certain kind$ of people deserve protection


guards armed with guns, in a QUAKER school?

somehow, i'm having trouble believing this. they may be armed, the teachers may all be black belts in various styles, but I can almost 100% guarantee that there are no guards armed with guns at a Quaker school. Even if it's in the middle of DC, I sincerely doubt that there are armed guards. Something about their absolute aversion to killing people. Yes, they will defend themselves, but I can't see a Quaker arming guards. I just can't.

Of course: I am not a crook. :-(
 
2012-12-24 12:04:43 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: This is the guy who also broke the DC gun laws by having that high capacity gun clip?

Typical left - the laws are for other people and security is good for my kids but not yours.


A hair clip? I think the term you are looking for is magazine not clip. But both sides of this debate are making suggestions that are impractical, foolish and a knee jerk reaction.
 
2012-12-24 12:04:52 PM

bulldg4life: But that's because the head of the largest gun rights lobbyist group is screaming about ciolent video games and proposing ridiculous solutions instead of providing meaningful proposals.

And, it filters down to all the little minions that fill up threads like this with similarly stupid and meaningless trite.


The NRA has 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country.
 
2012-12-24 12:05:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: ongbok: tenpoundsofcheese: This is the guy who also broke the DC gun laws by having that high capacity gun clip?

Typical left - the laws are for other people and security is good for my kids but not yours.

And the village idiot makes his appearance.
Thank you for announcing your presence.

Show me where he said that schools shouldn't have armed security. Oh you know something, he didn't. He said that armed security alone won't prevent school shootings.
The guy breaks the law on national TV and you want to give him a pass?  Pathetic.
Of course no one thing will prevent any school shootings, that is a typical journalist garbage statement when they have an agenda:  "well, you know that if you do X, it won't solve the problem completely, so you shouldn't do X".


So in other words you can't show me any statement made by him saying that schools shouldn't have armed security? Just as I thought.

And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.

Call me when the DC cops arrest him for it. But let me guess, they won't because they are a bunch of Libby Libs protecting another Lib.
 
2012-12-24 12:06:02 PM

s2s2s2: Columbine had an armed guard

Virginia Tech had a police force, and Ft Hood is a military base.


Very valid points. We put armed guards at banks and jewelry stores, and yet these are still robbed.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that an armed guard is some sort of fool-proof kryptonite that will automatically prevent a crazed gunman from killing anyone like it's a shark repellant spray.

But I think rationally, even in the cases of Virginia Tech and Fort Hood, the presence of armed responders brought the rampage to an end sooner than it would likely have ended without. And at Columbine, where as I recall they killed the guard first, it was the arrival of armed police that brought that tragedy to an end.

Again, no one is suggesting that trained guards are a guarantee. Only that they are a reasonable minimum precaution a possible deterrant, and perhaps can minimize the death toll.
 
2012-12-24 12:06:09 PM

Igor Jakovsky:
Meh, my public high school installed an armed school resource officer who was an actual cop a few years after I graduated. He was there mostly because there was a lot of drug dealing going on at the school. After Columbine, the school board decided to keep him on staff.

I don't necessarily see why it is such an awful idea. A trained officer may not be able to save everyone but they may be able to mitigate the damage.


Because it's clearly already in place.


Plus it would mean thousands of new jobs. Why do you hate job creation?


So did the TSA. You don't need to hire a maid every time you shiat your pants. It's a bad situation, but it's pretty rare.

Attacking people in schools is not a nationwide epidemic. Murdering people in large quantities with high-capacity guns is.
 
2012-12-24 12:06:41 PM

Fark It: bulldg4life: But that's because the head of the largest gun rights lobbyist group is screaming about ciolent video games and proposing ridiculous solutions instead of providing meaningful proposals.

And, it filters down to all the little minions that fill up threads like this with similarly stupid and meaningless trite.

The NRA has 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country.


Then why is the only voice for gun rights some far right nutjob that does nothing but make the other 75m people look bad?
 
2012-12-24 12:06:50 PM

s2s2s2: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?

VA Tech, and apparently Columbine from what I have learned.

Columbine had an armed guard

Virginia Tech had a police force, and Ft Hood is a military base.


So realistically we should make all schools into fortified security compounds just to be safe.
 
2012-12-24 12:07:08 PM

ongbok: And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.


Clearly the rules don't apply to gun control advocates, only evil, racist, child-murdering NRA gun-fappers, amirite?
 
2012-12-24 12:07:49 PM

i upped my meds-up yours: bulldg4life: i upped my meds-up yours: bulldg4life: To add, I find it incredibly humorous that...in the same breath as decrying a full out gun ban...people are proposing a similarly pie in the sky effort to solve everything.

Meanwhile, these threads are filled with dozens upon dozens of people asking for a moderated combination of solutions including gun control, security, and health issues.

Goddamn ideas like that are probably stupid.

Stupid? No. Impossible to discuss meaningfully given the state of public discourse today? Yes.

Realistic proposals aren't about realistic solutions. They're about getting people's attention so they don't get stomped like gumwads in the subway. This requires them to be butt-simple and give folks an emotional rush.

Yes, it may be impossible to discuss... But that's because the head of the largest gun rights lobbyist group is screaming about ciolent video games and proposing ridiculous solutions instead of providing meaningful proposals.

And, it filters down to all the little minions that fill up threads like this with similarly stupid and meaningless trite.

If we consider Obama to be the "other side of the argument", then we see that his proposal combined three/four different ideas and a call to look at solutions and come to a compromise.

And has it not become a political gumwad in the subway? Is it not unsexy and tl-dr?


I don't know what this means.
 
2012-12-24 12:07:57 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrs.Sharpier: LargeCanine: ongbok: This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

This is untrue. The NRA has - to my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.

Nope. LaPierre refuses to implement more background checks or waiting periods.

yeah about that

Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said his group is working closely with Democrats on new legislation that would make it easier for states to update and transmit records to the FBI involving residents who have been deemed mentally unfit to own a gun.


"If someone is adjudicated by a court of law to be mentally defective, a danger to themselves or others, are suicidal, they should be prohibited from owning a firearm and the record of that adjudication should be included in the background check," LaPierre told FOXNews.com.


"It has been the NRA's position for over two decades," he said.


Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269142,00.html#ixzz2FzQ6QL49


How about that? Turns out their position was to weaken those checks.

Link

The Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed a lifetime ban on firearm possession by any person who was ever adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 provided that such persons could petition BATFE for removal of such disabilities, but Congress has prohibited that procedure in annual appropriations acts. For the first time since 1968, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007," H.R. 2640, would allow the states to provide procedures to remove these federal disabilities, and also require federal agencies to adopt disability removal procedures.

Imposing a lifetime firearm ban on all persons who were ever subject to such adjudications or commitments, without any hope for such persons to prove themselves recovered, is cruel and vindictive. H.R. 2640 would remedy this injustice and allow restoration of such persons' Second Amendment rights.

Almost all mental commitments and adjudications occur under state law. This bill requires states to have procedures to allow such persons to show that they would not be a danger to public safety. Under H.R. 2640, the State "shall grant the relief" if the person is unlikely to endanger the public. The person would also have the right to appeal a denial to a state court. This is the first time since the ban was imposed in 1968 that persons could seek relief at the state level, thereby reforming current law which only authorizes BATFE to decide on relief. When BATFE used to administer such a program, it granted relief about 40% of the time, but Congress has circumvented that law by defunding the BATFE program.

The Veterans' Administration and other federal agencies also conduct certain adjudications and commitments, and the bill provides for removal of these disabilities by these same agencies-rather than by BATFE-and for judicial review of any denial. Many people could also get relief from a provision in the bill that excludes adjudications or commitments where the person has been "fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring."

Passage of H.R. 2640 would, for the first time in their lives, give hope to persons who in the past were subject to a mental commitment or adjudication and have recovered their mental health. Current law only serves to sentence such persons to a lifetime ban on firearms without any chance of ever redeeming their Second Amendment rights.
 
2012-12-24 12:08:36 PM

Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning


And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.

i50.tinypic.com

I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.
 
2012-12-24 12:09:08 PM

LargeCanine: JRoo: Gotta admit, the NRA has a solid business plan.

Every time a gun gets used, more guns get sold.

If people aren't afraid enough of criminals to buy more guns, then they'll buy them because they think the government is going to take them away.

That WOULD be an awesome business plan if they only actually sold guns. Hey, maybe they could open a store.



Oh yeah, I'm sure there's NO connection between the NRA and gun marketers and manufacturers.

I'm totally sure their whole magazine isn't one huge commercial for the latest and greatest weapons.

Yup.
 
2012-12-24 12:09:19 PM
Best part? The neo-Confederates are never going to realize that the liberals are going full Obama mode and are just pretending to be against armed-guards-in-every-school so they can trick idiots like DIA into being for it. Before you know it, 200,000 more unionized government workers with government-paid healthcare for life, more protection for poor kids (Socialism), and all paid for by increased taxes (on ammo and guns). Brilliant. Let's oppose it until they double down. Make it 400,000 more on the dole.

/thread needs more wild hog pics
 
2012-12-24 12:09:49 PM

bulldg4life: Fark It: bulldg4life: But that's because the head of the largest gun rights lobbyist group is screaming about ciolent video games and proposing ridiculous solutions instead of providing meaningful proposals.

And, it filters down to all the little minions that fill up threads like this with similarly stupid and meaningless trite.

The NRA has 4 million members. There are 80 million gun owners in this country.

Then why is the only voice for gun rights some far right nutjob that does nothing but make the other 75m people look bad?


I can say the same thing about pretty much everybody on the gun control side of the equation. The NRA is the only group that the media listens to, and it's easier to have two people screaming at each other, PTI-style, than it is to have a reasonable discussion.
 
2012-12-24 12:10:04 PM

Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.


It is written..."You will protect the illuminodes at all costs... the war fodder, not so much"
 
2012-12-24 12:10:55 PM

s2s2s2: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?

VA Tech, and apparently Columbine from what I have learned.

Columbine had an armed guard

Virginia Tech had a police force, and Ft Hood is a military base.


And what point are you making? They didn't stop the mass shootings there did they? I know at least a requirement that people should have a mental health screening and those deemed to be mentally unfit can't buy firearms probably would have stopped the VA Tech shootings. The other two, I don't know.
 
2012-12-24 12:11:26 PM

rufus-t-firefly: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrs.Sharpier: LargeCanine: ongbok: This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

This is untrue. The NRA has - to my knowledge always - advocated keeping guns away from mentally unstable people.

Nope. LaPierre refuses to implement more background checks or waiting periods.

yeah about that

Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said his group is working closely with Democrats on new legislation that would make it easier for states to update and transmit records to the FBI involving residents who have been deemed mentally unfit to own a gun.


"If someone is adjudicated by a court of law to be mentally defective, a danger to themselves or others, are suicidal, they should be prohibited from owning a firearm and the record of that adjudication should be included in the background check," LaPierre told FOXNews.com.


"It has been the NRA's position for over two decades," he said.


Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269142,00.html#ixzz2FzQ6QL49

How about that? Turns out their position was to weaken those checks.

Link

The Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed a lifetime ban on firearm possession by any person who was ever adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 provided that such persons could petition BATFE for removal of such disabilities, but Congress has prohibited that procedure in annual appropriations acts. For the first time since 1968, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007," H.R. 2640, would allow the states to provide procedures to remove these federal disabilities, and also require federal agencies to adopt disability removal procedures.

Imposing a lifetime firearm ban on all persons who were ever subject to such adjudications or commitments, without any hope for such persons to prove themselves reco ...


The NRA lobbied for due process, particularly for veterans, and a way to clear their names and have their rights restored?

How DARE they! What monsters. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
 
2012-12-24 12:11:58 PM
It seems like a trap to me, the whole armed guards at school debate. One the one hand, you'll have armed protection for your children, on the other hand your children will be guarded by armed personnel. With all the fences topped with
razor wire and armed men guarding the perimeter, it sure would look like a prison for midgets.
 
2012-12-24 12:12:06 PM
So, when did Nabb1 go full teabagger? I remember having reasonable discussions with him just a few months ago.

Was it the election that broke him? Lotta right-wing folks seem stuck in the "anger" stage of grief since then.
 
2012-12-24 12:12:55 PM

ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?

VA Tech, and apparently Columbine from what I have learned.

Columbine had an armed guard

Virginia Tech had a police force, and Ft Hood is a military base.

And what point are you making? They didn't stop the mass shootings there did they? I know at least a requirement that people should have a mental health screening and those deemed to be mentally unfit can't buy firearms probably would have stopped the VA Tech shootings. The other two, I don't know.


The VA Tech shooter should have had his records submitted to the NICS and been barred from buying his weapons. The state failed to do so. That is not a failure of federal gun law, it's a failure of the state of Virginia to protect its citizens.
 
2012-12-24 12:13:12 PM

bulldg4life: Then why is the only voice for gun rights some far right nutjob that does nothing but make the other 75m people look bad?


He's not. He's the head of the most influential organized gun-rights advocacy lobby group.

Any more than the AARP is the only voice for the elderly or the NAACP is the only voice for African-Americans.
 
2012-12-24 12:13:17 PM
i50.tinypic.com

Every person that died in an auto accident in 2011 was killed by a black Dodge Challenger? What are the farkin' odds?
 
2012-12-24 12:13:44 PM

moothemagiccow: Igor Jakovsky:
Meh, my public high school installed an armed school resource officer who was an actual cop a few years after I graduated. He was there mostly because there was a lot of drug dealing going on at the school. After Columbine, the school board decided to keep him on staff.

I don't necessarily see why it is such an awful idea. A trained officer may not be able to save everyone but they may be able to mitigate the damage.


Because it's clearly already in place.


Plus it would mean thousands of new jobs. Why do you hate job creation?

So did the TSA. You don't need to hire a maid every time you shiat your pants. It's a bad situation, but it's pretty rare.

Attacking people in schools is not a nationwide epidemic. Murdering people in large quantities with high-capacity guns is.


The last part of my statement was sarcasm. I think the TSA should be disbanded. The guys who flew into the towers farked this country up above and beyond the 2800 souls who died that day.

/when I shiat my pants I prefer to pay someone else to clean it up. TYVM.
 
2012-12-24 12:13:48 PM

Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.



I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.


Things we do with cars that we don't do with weapons:

- written test required for learner's permit which requires adult in the vehicle to drive
- driving test with certified individual before receiving license
- liability insurance and properly registrated car required for driving (which is updated yearly)
- constant patrols by officers to verify that all appropriate safety regulations are being followed (complete with fines and revocation of driving privileges in certain situations)

And, even then, we ban certain vehicles on our roads because they are unsafe.

After a car crash, we don't put more Indy cars in the roads to even the playing field
 
2012-12-24 12:15:10 PM

amindtat: [i50.tinypic.com image 578x639]

Every person that died in an auto accident in 2011 was killed by a black Dodge Challenger? What are the farkin' odds?


The AI module programming was...faulty. Those responsible have been sacked.
 
2012-12-24 12:16:08 PM

Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.

[i50.tinypic.com image 578x639]

I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.


If you use this analogy you might be retarded.
 
2012-12-24 12:16:10 PM
Don't forget, the NRA is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers. They don't care about you, your safety, your rights, or the Constitution.
 
2012-12-24 12:16:51 PM
There's a simple solution for school security that doesn't require additional tax dollars.

Take that cop writing tickets for traffic offenses out front of the school, move him ton the entrance of said school, then make him sit there until school's out.
 
2012-12-24 12:16:54 PM
cdn.head-fi.org
 
2012-12-24 12:17:02 PM
According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

We are basing this entire discussion on the assumptions of one partisan blogger who considers himself an expert because he briefly looked at a website once.

I bet some of you actually believe there are eleven armed guards at the school.
 
2012-12-24 12:19:12 PM

St_Francis_P: amindtat: [i50.tinypic.com image 578x639]

Every person that died in an auto accident in 2011 was killed by a black Dodge Challenger? What are the farkin' odds?

The AI module programming was...faulty. Those responsible have been sacked.


What the driver might look like.

hauntedfire.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-24 12:19:17 PM

ongbok: And what point are you making?


I'm not making one. This is a simple issue in a complex culture. The best sense says less guns = less gun death.
It would seem America wishes to add complexity where there is none.
 
2012-12-24 12:19:20 PM
This is just one more example of the progressive hypocrisy that gives rise to states like Soviet Russia or Cuba or any other dictatorship or any country you can name with a ruling elite. It is part of human nature and the exact reason why systems like this will never ever work. The progressive left in this country just will not learn from history. They think THIS time we can make it work. You cannot create a class of people with the power of the military behind it, and give them all the power over people's lives and have it work. The progressives want govt to have the power to make things fair. To forcibly take from some and give to others. To enforce by the power of jail or death their idea of how things should be. A lot of progressives really do have good hearts. They see the unfairness and evil in the world and think "Somebody has to do something". The problem is that the something they so long for will destroy all they claim to want so badly. It has always happened that way. It always will.

America is not perfect and has never been perfect. We have had and continue to have many things that need to be addressed. Tweeks to be made. This idea that seems to be gaining traction though is a very dangerous one. The idea that in order to fix things rights need to be taken away. Not even really taken away. Simply a shift made from what this country was founded on which is unalienable rights to the idea that rights and not rights but simply priviliedges given to the people and as such can be revoked at any time if the need arises. All you left leaning farkers really need to take a step back from the rhetoric and ask yourselves if that is really such a great idea.
 
2012-12-24 12:20:13 PM

walkingtall: This is just one more example of the progressive hypocrisy that gives rise to states like Soviet Russia or Cuba or any other dictatorship or any country you can name with a ruling elite. It is part of human nature and the exact reason why systems like this will never ever work. The progressive left in this country just will not learn from history. They think THIS time we can make it work. You cannot create a class of people with the power of the military behind it, and give them all the power over people's lives and have it work. The progressives want govt to have the power to make things fair. To forcibly take from some and give to others. To enforce by the power of jail or death their idea of how things should be. A lot of progressives really do have good hearts. They see the unfairness and evil in the world and think "Somebody has to do something". The problem is that the something they so long for will destroy all they claim to want so badly. It has always happened that way. It always will.

America is not perfect and has never been perfect. We have had and continue to have many things that need to be addressed. Tweeks to be made. This idea that seems to be gaining traction though is a very dangerous one. The idea that in order to fix things rights need to be taken away. Not even really taken away. Simply a shift made from what this country was founded on which is unalienable rights to the idea that rights and not rights but simply priviliedges given to the people and as such can be revoked at any time if the need arises. All you left leaning farkers really need to take a step back from the rhetoric and ask yourselves if that is really such a great idea.


0/10
 
2012-12-24 12:20:25 PM

kxs401: They don't care about you, your safety, your rights, or the Constitution.


www.city-data.com
 
2012-12-24 12:20:31 PM

bulldg4life: After a car crash, we don't put more Indy cars in the roads to even the playing field


The guns to auto comparison is fundamentally flawed and unworkable. I don;t see why people on both sides keep going to it. Cars are designed for a different purpose than killing.

I think that a more useful exploration is to look at poison. Poison, by it's nature is dangerous and must be used with care, but can be used responsibly and to good purpose.

In 2011, 30,000 people died as a result of gunshots. In that same year over 40,000 people diedas a result of poison.
 
2012-12-24 12:21:24 PM

Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.



I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.


False equivalence. One of the weakest fallacies there is. Why don't you challenge us?
 
2012-12-24 12:21:38 PM

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


Exactly . Only rich people need protection not the common folk.
 
2012-12-24 12:22:11 PM

s2s2s2: GAT_00: Here's another guy who keeps ignoring Columbine.

There were armed guards on campus at Columbine?


And if your argument is that armed guards stop school shootings, and the only school that had an armed guard at the time of a shooting suffered one of the worst school shootings, then your argument is totally worthless.
 
2012-12-24 12:22:31 PM

bulldg4life: Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.

I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.

Things we do with cars that we don't do with weapons:

- written test required for learner's permit which requires adult in the vehicle to drive
- driving test with certified individual before receiving license
- liability insurance and properly registrated car required for driving (which is updated yearly)
- constant patrols by officers to verify that all appropriate safety regulations are being followed (complete with fines and revocation of driving privileges in certain situations)

And, even then, we ban certain vehicles on our roads because they are unsafe.

After a car crash, we don't put more Indy cars in the roads to even the playing field


-Permit is required to legally carry a gun (criminals will never follow this)
-Driving Test is included with the Written test, you have to pass both...no need to try to score a 2nd point here.
-Half of all drivers on the road are still uninsured, even though it is law in many states that require the insurance (so can we call this Insurance Control?)
-The Police officers use discretionary tactics to verify if a ticket should or shouldn't be issued. And yet, there are still Criminals out there who violate the rules and continue to break the laws everytime they drive, despite those laws being in place.

And finally, yes, we ban vehicles that are unsafe...unsafe to the DRIVER, not to everyone else. No Mopeds or Scooters on freeways, etc. Every single Liberal argument in this situation can be summed up in your ignorance to understand basic societal rules. Criminals will always break the law. The Law-Abiding citizens are the only ones affected by new laws.
 
2012-12-24 12:22:44 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Best part? The neo-Confederates are never going to realize that the liberals are going full Obama mode and are just pretending to be against armed-guards-in-every-school so they can trick idiots like DIA into being for it. Before you know it, 200,000 more unionized government workers with government-paid healthcare for life, more protection for poor kids (Socialism), and all paid for by increased taxes (on ammo and guns). Brilliant. Let's oppose it until they double down. Make it 400,000 more on the dole.

/thread needs more wild hog pics


yeah, that's probably what it is...
 
2012-12-24 12:23:17 PM

Fart_Machine: walkingtall: This is just one more example of the progressive hypocrisy that gives rise to states like Soviet Russia or Cuba or any other dictatorship or any country you can name with a ruling elite. It is part of human nature and the exact reason why systems like this will never ever work. The progressive left in this country just will not learn from history. They think THIS time we can make it work. You cannot create a class of people with the power of the military behind it, and give them all the power over people's lives and have it work. The progressives want govt to have the power to make things fair. To forcibly take from some and give to others. To enforce by the power of jail or death their idea of how things should be. A lot of progressives really do have good hearts. They see the unfairness and evil in the world and think "Somebody has to do something". The problem is that the something they so long for will destroy all they claim to want so badly. It has always happened that way. It always will.

America is not perfect and has never been perfect. We have had and continue to have many things that need to be addressed. Tweeks to be made. This idea that seems to be gaining traction though is a very dangerous one. The idea that in order to fix things rights need to be taken away. Not even really taken away. Simply a shift made from what this country was founded on which is unalienable rights to the idea that rights and not rights but simply priviliedges given to the people and as such can be revoked at any time if the need arises. All you left leaning farkers really need to take a step back from the rhetoric and ask yourselves if that is really such a great idea.

0/10


Needed this:
www.memecreator.org
 
2012-12-24 12:23:24 PM
Good lord...
 
2012-12-24 12:24:22 PM

s2s2s2: I'm not making one. This is a simple issue in a complex culture. The best sense says less guns = less gun death.


The problem with that gross oversimplificatino is that gun crime has been regulalry trending down for the last decade or more, while gun ownership has been increasing. So the number of gun crimes doe not seem to be correlated directly to the number of guns.

Since the decrease in gun crime has trended downward in roughly similar proportion to crime in general, it would seem that gun crime is more a function of criminal behavior that gun ownership, but that may also be a ...simplification.
 
2012-12-24 12:24:26 PM

Fark It: ongbok: And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.

Clearly the rules don't apply to gun control advocates, only evil, racist, child-murdering NRA gun-fappers, amirite?


So know you are going to demand that every reporter that does a report on something illegal, and as a part of that report shows an example of that illegal item, be arrested? Or suggest that their report or what ever point they were trying to make is now invalid because they showed an example of what they were reporting on? If that was the case then a lot of reporters that did reports on drugs would be in jail and discredited now.

You guys sure do come up with some weak pathetic arguments.
 
2012-12-24 12:26:10 PM

BojanglesPaladin: bulldg4life: Then why is the only voice for gun rights some far right nutjob that does nothing but make the other 75m people look bad?

He's not. He's the head of the most influential organized gun-rights advocacy lobby group.

Any more than the AARP is the only voice for the elderly or the NAACP is the only voice for African-Americans.


This is how the media legislates from the TV.
 
2012-12-24 12:26:37 PM
Why would a school in DC need security at all?

Washington DC has very strict gun control. Therefore, there is no crime there.
 
2012-12-24 12:27:12 PM

Fart_Machine: 0/10


Really? you are going to claim that post is a troll? The idea that rights need to remain unalienable is a troll idea? Or is it the idea that the left is trying to change that? This event is a very good example. Read the thread. Some innocent lives get lost and the very first thing mentioned is to either repeal the 2nd amendment or make it so onerous for anyone to have a gun that it is a technical ban on guns. The 2nd amendment is not a priviledge. Even the SC has ruled that way. Any SC that has people on it that truly respects the Consititution has had to swallow real hard to even allow any infringement on that right. They have allowed some but read some of the dissenting opinions or even the majority opinions. They havent been happy about it because the 2nd amendment was not written to be a govt controlled priviledge. Once you make the switch from right to priviledge it is almost impossible to go the other way.
 
2012-12-24 12:28:28 PM

Fade2black: bulldg4life: Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.

I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.

Things we do with cars that we don't do with weapons:

- written test required for learner's permit which requires adult in the vehicle to drive
- driving test with certified individual before receiving license
- liability insurance and properly registrated car required for driving (which is updated yearly)
- constant patrols by officers to verify that all appropriate safety regulations are being followed (complete with fines and revocation of driving privileges in certain situations)

And, even then, we ban certain vehicles on our roads because they are unsafe.

After a car crash, we don't put more Indy cars in the roads to even the playing field

-Permit is required to legally carry a gun (criminals will never follow this)
-Driving Test is included with the Written test, you have to pass both...no need to try to score a 2nd point here.
-Half of all drivers on the road are still uninsured, even though it is law in many states that require the insurance (so can we call this Insurance Control?)
-The Police officers use discretionary tactics to verify if a ticket should or shouldn't be issued. And yet, there are still Criminals out there who violate the rules and continue to break the laws everytime they drive, despite those laws being in place.

And finally, yes, we ban vehicles that are unsafe...unsafe to the DRIVER, not to everyone else. No Mopeds or Scooters on freeways, etc. Every single Liberal argument in this situation can be summed up in your ignorance to understand basic societal rules. Criminals will always break the law. The Law-Abiding citizens are the only ones affected by new laws.


So you're saying all guns should be registered like vehicles? Or that everyone who owns a gun should have insurance on it? You didn't think your clever plan all the way through.
 
2012-12-24 12:29:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: bulldg4life: After a car crash, we don't put more Indy cars in the roads to even the playing field

The guns to auto comparison is fundamentally flawed and unworkable. I don;t see why people on both sides keep going to it. Cars are designed for a different purpose than killing.

I think that a more useful exploration is to look at poison. Poison, by it's nature is dangerous and must be used with care, but can be used responsibly and to good purpose.

In 2011, 30,000 people died as a result of gunshots. In that same year over 40,000 people diedas a result of poison.


Did you include alcohol, our most favorite self inflicted poison.
 
2012-12-24 12:30:40 PM

ongbok: Fark It: ongbok: And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.

Clearly the rules don't apply to gun control advocates, only evil, racist, child-murdering NRA gun-fappers, amirite?

So know you are going to demand that every reporter that does a report on something illegal, and as a part of that report shows an example of that illegal item, be arrested? Or suggest that their report or what ever point they were trying to make is now invalid because they showed an example of what they were reporting on? If that was the case then a lot of reporters that did reports on drugs would be in jail and discredited now.

You guys sure do come up with some weak pathetic arguments.


Show us an example of a reporter reporting on a prohibited item and possessing said item on his/her person, on camera, on live TV, where such an item is expressly and notably prohibited. Go on.

You're calling us pathetic? You're equating possession of a prohibited item with "showing an example of that illegal item." Since when do reporters bring props into the studio when they report on drug busts?

/we get it, the rules don't apply to gun control advocates when they're pushing an agenda
 
2012-12-24 12:30:46 PM
Home school is the way to go
 
2012-12-24 12:31:24 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: 0/10

Really? you are going to claim that post is a troll? The idea that rights need to remain unalienable is a troll idea? Or is it the idea that the left is trying to change that? This event is a very good example. Read the thread. Some innocent lives get lost and the very first thing mentioned is to either repeal the 2nd amendment or make it so onerous for anyone to have a gun that it is a technical ban on guns. The 2nd amendment is not a priviledge. Even the SC has ruled that way. Any SC that has people on it that truly respects the Consititution has had to swallow real hard to even allow any infringement on that right. They have allowed some but read some of the dissenting opinions or even the majority opinions. They havent been happy about it because the 2nd amendment was not written to be a govt controlled priviledge. Once you make the switch from right to priviledge it is almost impossible to go the other way.


Sure, your strawman at the beginning was pretty obvious no?

So do you believe every Amendment to the Constitution doesn't have caveats included within the law? That every right is absolute without restrictions?
 
2012-12-24 12:31:24 PM
The one thing that these threads show us is the fear held by the rabid wannabe fascist progressives, that fear tells us that the second amendment is working very well.
 
2012-12-24 12:31:29 PM

snocone: is is how the media legislates from the TV.


I kinda agree, but in fairness, they have to have SOMEONE to act as representative of a particular viewpoint. And I don;t know about you, but I prefer to listen to subject-matter experts on topics of interest over Sally from the supermarket's opinion.

The problem is less that the press (especially broadcast news) gives certain people "authority status" by putting them on the air, and more that the American people accept that designation uncritically

I do not consider LaPierre an authority on what I should think about gun control any more than I think Norquist is an authority on my thoughts about tax policy or Jesse Jackson is an authority on what I should think about civil rights.

Too many people confuse expertise and opinion for official authority.
 
2012-12-24 12:31:47 PM

Fart_Machine:

So you're saying all guns s ...


I thought my plan through, and I countered the argument brought forth. You have nothing to add to this conversation, so you try to denegrate mine instead. Try again.
 
2012-12-24 12:32:08 PM

St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.


They didnt seem to mind when Bill Clinton made the suggestion, or when Barbara Boxer made the suggestion, but wait, the NRA makes the suggestion .. LOONIE!

Oh wait.. Boxer didnt suggest it be off duty or retired police officers.. she suggested it be the military.

but nope.. thats not covered.
 
2012-12-24 12:32:15 PM

BojanglesPaladin: bulldg4life: After a car crash, we don't put more Indy cars in the roads to even the playing field

The guns to auto comparison is fundamentally flawed and unworkable. I don;t see why people on both sides keep going to it. Cars are designed for a different purpose than killing.

I think that a more useful exploration is to look at poison. Poison, by it's nature is dangerous and must be used with care, but can be used responsibly and to good purpose.

In 2011, 30,000 people died as a result of gunshots. In that same year over 40,000 people diedas a result of poison.


I know something you could do to really drive this point home, wink wink.
 
2012-12-24 12:32:36 PM

Nabb1: gilgigamesh: Proposing armed guards in every school was not meant as a serious solution.  It was a red herring to deflect the conversation away from the broader issue of gun violence in America.  In other words, LaPierre was trolling.

And judging from the response in the media and threads like this one, successful troll was very, very successful.

An assault weapon ban isn't going to do much about gun violence, either.  Sure, it may make us all feel better, maybe the next shooter will only get 12 or 13 instead of a couple dozen.  I find it remarkable that people are barking about their own personal solution like they're all mutually exclusive.


That's not better?????

Anyway, I've been saying it from the start: more security at schools, tightening gun restrictions, and more immediate access to mental healthcare. You're right that people are attempting to find one solution and ignore the rest.
 
2012-12-24 12:33:44 PM

EnviroDude: Only peasants send their children to schools where they can be slaughtered.


So you're in favor of the government stepping in and making sure that everyone is equal, right?
 
2012-12-24 12:34:13 PM

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


I would guess that Wayne LaPierre does not either. That is irrelevant though. Dick Gregory is commenting that it is absurd to have guns in schools. It's a gun and drug free zone.
 
2012-12-24 12:34:21 PM

Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.

[i50.tinypic.com image 578x639]

I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.


images.elephantjournal.com
 
2012-12-24 12:34:34 PM
Can we take away free speech next? I'm afraid of free speech, therefore yours should be tightly regulated and monitored.
 
2012-12-24 12:36:03 PM

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


No. But you sure don't see his kids at a unarmed school either.
 
2012-12-24 12:36:05 PM

Fark It: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?

VA Tech, and apparently Columbine from what I have learned.

Columbine had an armed guard

Virginia Tech had a police force, and Ft Hood is a military base.

And what point are you making? They didn't stop the mass shootings there did they? I know at least a requirement that people should have a mental health screening and those deemed to be mentally unfit can't buy firearms probably would have stopped the VA Tech shootings. The other two, I don't know.

The VA Tech shooter should have had his records submitted to the NICS and been barred from buying his weapons. The state failed to do so. That is not a failure of federal gun law, it's a failure of the state of Virginia to protect its citizens.


If I'm not mistaken, the VA Tech shooter didn't have a criminal record and had never been committed to a mental health facility, so he could legally purchase a gun. The NICS wouldn't have information on what he was diagnosed with because of privacy laws, it would only have information on his mental condition if he had ever been committed. If there had also been a requirement that he receive a mental health screening as a part of his application for a gun he probably would have been deemed unfit and not allowed to legally purchase one.
 
2012-12-24 12:36:20 PM
img27.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 12:37:19 PM

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


And who is saying all schools need armed guards, except you? LaPierre stated that on a case by case basis, if the local administration and community felt they wanted it, they should do it as a gun free sign out front provides little protection.
 
2012-12-24 12:37:22 PM

ongbok: tenpoundsofcheese: ongbok: tenpoundsofcheese: This is the guy who also broke the DC gun laws by having that high capacity gun clip?

Typical left - the laws are for other people and security is good for my kids but not yours.

And the village idiot makes his appearance.
Thank you for announcing your presence.

Show me where he said that schools shouldn't have armed security. Oh you know something, he didn't. He said that armed security alone won't prevent school shootings.
The guy breaks the law on national TV and you want to give him a pass?  Pathetic.
Of course no one thing will prevent any school shootings, that is a typical journalist garbage statement when they have an agenda:  "well, you know that if you do X, it won't solve the problem completely, so you shouldn't do X".

So in other words you can't show me any statement made by him saying that schools shouldn't have armed security? Just as I thought.

And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.

Call me when the DC cops arrest him for it. But let me guess, they won't because they are a bunch of Libby Libs protecting another Lib.


It actually was a 30 round magazine which is illegal to possess in DC. He could have used a picture but I guess he figured if he waved the real thing around on TV and put on his serious voice, it would be scarier.
 
2012-12-24 12:38:49 PM

Fart_Machine: Sure, your strawman at the beginning was pretty obvious no?

So do you believe every Amendment to the Constitution doesn't have caveats included within the law? That every right is absolute without restrictions?


Rights are absolute. That is the definition of a right. Funny that you would laugh at me when the very definition of a right is absolute without restrictions. Read the second amendment. 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." Where is that wording do you believe there is wiggle room? We have artificially created wiggle room but even the SC has ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the 2nd amendment just doesnt leave any wiggle room. It is an enumerated right and no govt can infringe upon it.

It worries me more that people like you truly believe that rights arent really rights then this debate.
 
2012-12-24 12:39:18 PM

snocone: Did you include alcohol, our most favorite self inflicted poison.


I don't believe so. This is a CDC number, which I believe tracks alchohol related deaths seperately. Moslty, it's people ODing on prescription drugs. You can read up on it in detail if you like.

The point is that there are many, many things that kill people in greater numbers than guns and need to be better regulated. Even things like poison and prescription pain kilers.

As a further correlary,.over half of gun deaths in America are self inflicted wounds and suicides. Same for poisoning. We have a suicide problem that dwarfs the rampaging gunman problem.

So much of this faux debate is focusing on the wrong end of the problem. The issue is the intent, not the implement.
 
2012-12-24 12:39:48 PM
Don't you realize that these are the children of a man on TV? They are worth protecting more than your snowflake.
 
2012-12-24 12:40:34 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Best part? The neo-Confederates are never going to realize that the liberals are going full Obama mode and are just pretending to be against armed-guards-in-every-school so they can trick idiots like DIA into being for it. Before you know it, 200,000 more unionized government workers with government-paid healthcare for life, more protection for poor kids (Socialism), and all paid for by increased taxes (on ammo and guns). Brilliant. Let's oppose it until they double down. Make it 400,000 more on the dole.


Shhhh! Ont-day ive-gay t-iay way-ay!

/thread needs more wild hog pics

mimg.sulekha.com
 
2012-12-24 12:41:21 PM

Nabb1: Diogenes: Nabb1: Diogenes: Nabb1: nmrsnr: JerseyTim: Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.

Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?

Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.

Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.

And you are arguing that security for children should be a luxury item. Strange days indeed.

Fallacy of insufficient options.  I'm saying we can have smart security for all without further bankrupting education.

What is your idea of "smart security"?


How about retired police officers. They already are on a pension. An extra 20k a year will just be gravy for them.
Schools get someone who is trained. Cop make a few extra dollars. County saves some money over having actual police officer stationed there. Everyone is happy.
 
2012-12-24 12:41:37 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: I know something you could do to really drive this point home, wink wink.


I give up. What?
 
2012-12-24 12:42:08 PM

Fark It: ongbok: Fark It: ongbok: And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.

Clearly the rules don't apply to gun control advocates, only evil, racist, child-murdering NRA gun-fappers, amirite?

So know you are going to demand that every reporter that does a report on something illegal, and as a part of that report shows an example of that illegal item, be arrested? Or suggest that their report or what ever point they were trying to make is now invalid because they showed an example of what they were reporting on? If that was the case then a lot of reporters that did reports on drugs would be in jail and discredited now.

You guys sure do come up with some weak pathetic arguments.

Show us an example of a reporter reporting on a prohibited item and possessing said item on his/her person, on camera, on live TV, where such an item is expressly and notably prohibited. Go on.

You're calling us pathetic? You're equating possession of a prohibited item with "showing an example of that illegal item." Since when do reporters bring props into the studio when they report on drug busts?

/we get it, the rules don't apply to gun control advocates when they're pushing an agenda


Geraldo Rivera did it many times in the 80's with his reports on drugs. Even recently there was an MSNBC special about marijuana in the U.S were the reporter was interviewing growers, who had their faces blurred, while walking through their fields of marijuana. Or how about the recent stories about cocaine were the reporters go and interview the people that process cocaine in Colombia?
 
2012-12-24 12:42:47 PM

ongbok: Fark It: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?

VA Tech, and apparently Columbine from what I have learned.

Columbine had an armed guard

Virginia Tech had a police force, and Ft Hood is a military base.

And what point are you making? They didn't stop the mass shootings there did they? I know at least a requirement that people should have a mental health screening and those deemed to be mentally unfit can't buy firearms probably would have stopped the VA Tech shootings. The other two, I don't know.

The VA Tech shooter should have had his records submitted to the NICS and been barred from buying his weapons. The state failed to do so. That is not a failure of federal gun law, it's a failure of the state of Virginia to protect its citizens.

If I'm not mistaken, the VA Tech shooter didn't have a criminal record and had never been committed to a mental health facility, so he could legally purchase a gun. The NICS wouldn't have information on what he was diagnosed with because of privacy laws, it would only have information on his mental condition if he had ever been committed. If there had also been a requirement that he receive a mental health screening as a part of his application for a gun he probably would have been deemed unfit and not allowed to legally purchase one.


Cho was adjudicated mentally unsound in 2005. He should have never been allowed to legally buy a gun.
 
2012-12-24 12:43:12 PM

Fade2black: Fart_Machine:

So you're saying all guns s ...

I thought my plan through, and I countered the argument brought forth. You have nothing to add to this conversation, so you try to denegrate mine instead. Try again.


You didn't answer my question. Do you want the same registration restrictions on vehicles to be applied to firearms? Posting a graphic you pulled from Facebook is not an answer.
 
2012-12-24 12:43:18 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The point is that there are many, many things that kill people in greater numbers than guns and need to be better regulated. Even things like poison and prescription pain kilers.

As a further correlary,.over half of gun deaths in America are self inflicted wounds and suicides. Same for poisoning. We have a suicide problem that dwarfs the rampaging gunman problem.

So much of this faux debate is focusing on the wrong end of the problem. The issue is the intent, not the implement


You are not my favorite person but this point is dead on.
 
2012-12-24 12:43:32 PM

Nutsac_Jim: How about retired police officers. They already are on a pension. An extra 20k a year will just be gravy for them.


Maybe they don't want to work anymore? I'm sure they will all appreciate being dragged back into the workplace just to satisfy your paranoia.
 
2012-12-24 12:43:37 PM

Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.



I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.


Yay!! It's THIS TIRED LAME COMPARISON AGAIN!!

You fecking dolt, guns are on track to kill more people than automobiles by 2015.

And cars are regulated, guns are not.

So let's get gun owners insured, licenced, and put safety measures in place similar to vehicles, then you can make your retarded comparison.
 
2012-12-24 12:43:54 PM

Igor Jakovsky: It actually was a 30 round magazine which is illegal to possess in DC. He could have used a picture but I guess he figured if he waved the real thing around on TV and put on his serious voice, it would be scarier.


Props, how do they work?
 
2012-12-24 12:44:31 PM

amindtat: [i50.tinypic.com image 578x639]

Every person that died in an auto accident in 2011 was killed by a black Dodge Challenger? What are the farkin' odds?


No. In fact very few people we killed by this scary looking black car, but maybe somebody was. Regardless, can't we all agree that no one really needs a black Dodge Challenger and ban it now, BEFORE someone uses one to go on a speeding rampage?
 
2012-12-24 12:44:58 PM
People keep going back and forth like one side is right and the other is wrong.

There's nuances on both sides of the issue...

It would be good to have a gun registry (like we do for vehicles) so we know who owns what guns. if that gun is used in a crime, we can trace it back somewhere. At the same time, countries throughout history have taken away the civilians firearms to be able to do what they want with them (consolidating power), just look at Russia or China in the early 1900's.

Sure some people say having a 5 or 10 clip max on semi-auto rifles is enough to defend you and your family. But who's to say? What if 11 people are attacking your house, or you (FSM forbid) miss a shot or two, or don't one hit kill an intruder?

I honestly believe in gun regulations, but where do we draw the line? How do we ensure that civilians will always be able to stand up to a dictator who uses our military or police against it's own civilians? But how do we also ensure that we're preventing firearms from getting in the hands of criminals?

I don't think anyone has the easy answer, so for people to go back and forth so heated at each other is ridiculous.

I'm pretty farking liberal, but it really is true. When someone's rampaging with a gun, who's going to be able to stop them? Someone has to forcefully do it, unless they kill themselves. Maybe it's not with a gun, but it might make the job easier. But at the same time, it might make you a target for anyone else concealing a firearm, they may mistake you for the perp. Or you may hit an innocent person...

Stop acting like you furious keyboarders have all the answers. You don't.

The problem is mentally unstable people sometimes go on rampages. Maybe if our largest mental health institutions weren't prisons and jails (aka if we actually took mental health seriously in this country) we might not see so many of these rampaging looney's murdering children.

But keep arguing about the tool used for the killings, and not the root cause of why the people are going on rampages.

/end rant
 
2012-12-24 12:45:12 PM

ongbok: Geraldo Rivera did it many times in the 80's with his reports on drugs. Even recently there was an MSNBC special about marijuana in the U.S were the reporter was interviewing growers, who had their faces blurred, while walking through their fields of marijuana. Or how about the recent stories about cocaine were the reporters go and interview the people that process cocaine in Colombia?


Jesus Christ you are an idiot. Your examples are in no way, shape, or form comparable. It is illegal to possess 30-round "high capacity" magazines in D.C. It is not illegal to interview drug traffickers or marijuana growers.
 
2012-12-24 12:45:21 PM

kxs401: Did you guys know that the President said he doesn't think all Americans should have Secret Service protection, even though he himself has Secret Service protection??? What a hypocrite! It's like he thinks some lives are more valuable than others!


No. The president doesn't think all Americans should have Secret Service protection *or* be able to protect themselves.

/yes, that is hypocrisy by the way.
 
2012-12-24 12:47:46 PM
Pointing out to all the weak-minded, armed nutjobs where someone you disagree with's children go to school?

Super Creepy Evil.
 
2012-12-24 12:48:48 PM

BSABSVR: Also, since the theme of the the thread seems to be a pointless and incorrect gotcha: Who under the age of 60 gives a Fark about David Gregory?


Man, I miss Tim Russert!
 
2012-12-24 12:48:58 PM
They go to school on the Sunday before Xmas? Hardcore!
 
2012-12-24 12:49:18 PM

Mrs.Sharpier: You fecking dolt, guns are on track to kill more people than automobiles by 2015.

And cars are regulated, guns are not.


Gun deaths and car deaths are both declining, car deaths are just declining faster, and that's even with the dishonest tactic of counting "gun suicides" as "gun deaths," as access to guns is what's causing suicide. Cars are not regulated as guns are, btw. I can go to a dealer, pay cash for a car, and take it home to use on my private property with zero government intervention. When I use my car on public roads, that's when the regulations come in.

/the more dishonest and overreaching the gun control advocates become, the more gun owners dig their heels in
 
2012-12-24 12:49:24 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: m


The soldiers at Fort Hood were NOT ARMED. look it up.
 
2012-12-24 12:49:33 PM

Mrs.Sharpier: Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.

I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.

Yay!! It's THIS TIRED LAME COMPARISON AGAIN!!

You fecking dolt, guns are on track to kill more people than automobiles by 2015.

And cars are regulated, guns are not.

So let's get gun owners insured, licenced, and put safety measures in place similar to vehicles, then you can make your retarded comparison.


Take suicides out of the gun deaths and see how those numbers compare. Unless you assume a lot of car deaths are suicides.

lol at saying guns are not regulated. Maybe not as much as you would like, but they are heavily regulated.
 
2012-12-24 12:50:11 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: Sure, your strawman at the beginning was pretty obvious no?

So do you believe every Amendment to the Constitution doesn't have caveats included within the law? That every right is absolute without restrictions?

Rights are absolute. That is the definition of a right. Funny that you would laugh at me when the very definition of a right is absolute without restrictions. Read the second amendment. 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." Where is that wording do you believe there is wiggle room? We have artificially created wiggle room but even the SC has ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the 2nd amendment just doesnt leave any wiggle room. It is an enumerated right and no govt can infringe upon it.

It worries me more that people like you truly believe that rights arent really rights then this debate.


I laugh at you because you are ignorant of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled caveats on the Amendments you consider absolute. Heller didn't remove all statewide restrictions currently on the books for firearms and I invite you to exercise your absolute right to yell fire in a crowded theater and see what happens.
 
2012-12-24 12:50:16 PM

Diogenes: Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.

They pay for that security.  You're welcome to as well if that's your choice.


No. We are not. The schools are a "weapon free zone". Period. Not a "weapon free unless you pay for your own security zone".

I'm sure there are many parents in various school districts that would happily either pay for armed security at their school or even volunteer themselves. But they don't have that option.

/really surprised I had to type that.
 
2012-12-24 12:51:17 PM

Wayne 985: Anyway, I've been saying it from the start: more security at schools, tightening gun restrictions, and more immediate access to mental healthcare.


I agree on the first and last - no question, but the middle one.. depends on what you have in mind.

I see no evidence that the "assault' weapon ban or clip size matters much. The ban was in effect during Columbine for instance. The Virginia Tech shooter had two handguns. I don't think the type of gun is the issue, nor do I think limiting law abiding gun ownership will have any effect whatsoever on gun crime.

However, if you mean tightening restrictions on secondary market gun sales, I might be inclined to agree so long as it could be fashioned in a way that it did not in any way infringe on individual to individual gun sales. I think even a rational gun enthusiast can agree that there is a problem with the 'gun show loophole' and it is the main contributer to the bulk of gun crime - armed gang violence.
 
2012-12-24 12:53:50 PM

walkingtall: You are not my favorite person...


I thought I was EVERYONE's favorite person?
 
2012-12-24 12:54:48 PM

Nabb1: Some children are more important than others, submitter. It's a fact of life.


cman: Only children of the elite deserve schools with gun-carrying protectors.


it's not that at all and you know it. some kids are more likely to be targeted. like those of senators,presidents and rich people who will pay huge ransoms.
 
2012-12-24 12:55:07 PM

GAT_00: Or the fact that not a single person was calling for armed guards in schools before Friday.


This guy did:

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323
 
2012-12-24 12:56:55 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Gee, I wonder why a school where a lot of famous children including the President's daughters attend might have heightened security.


Gee, I wonder why none of them have been shot or kidnapped...

Does anyone honestly think that if something happened to just *one* of the kids at that school, that the parents of that school would toss up their hands and say that "Security doesn't work, guns don't work, let's just fire all the security guards and save ourselves some money."

No?

You mean to say if that happened that they might actually *increase* security? And the number of armed security around that school?

/clearly, they are all secretly right wing gun nuts.
 
2012-12-24 12:57:14 PM

Mrs.Sharpier: Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.

I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.

Yay!! It's THIS TIRED LAME COMPARISON AGAIN!!

You fecking dolt, guns are on track to kill more people than automobiles by 2015.

And cars are regulated, guns are not.

So let's get gun owners insured, licenced, and put safety measures in place similar to vehicles, then you can make your retarded comparison.


.
Uhm, no.
 
2012-12-24 12:57:39 PM
That's it for me everyone.

MERRY CHRISTMAS./big>b>
 
2012-12-24 12:57:52 PM

what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.


::raises hand::

Good enough?
 
2012-12-24 12:57:53 PM
I'll make this easy and boil it down.

" We going to have one set of rules for us and another set for the rest of you."

// He speaks French too.
 
2012-12-24 12:59:07 PM

Hobodeluxe: Nabb1: Some children are more important than others, submitter. It's a fact of life.

cman: Only children of the elite deserve schools with gun-carrying protectors.

it's not that at all and you know it. some kids are more likely to be targeted. like those of senators,presidents and rich people who will pay huge ransoms

or random children in the Sandy Hook school district.

FTFY
 
2012-12-24 01:00:04 PM

ourbigdumbmouth: Home school is the way to go


Duh, no it isn't - Lanza went to home school, which also had an armed guard
 
2012-12-24 01:01:33 PM

Nabb1: Some children are more important than others, submitter. It's a fact of life.


Natch. If you can't afford to send your snowflakes to a school with security then chances they aren't on the path to a college degree anyway. Nature balances itself that way.
 
2012-12-24 01:01:54 PM
I have no issue with armed guards at schools. I really don't understand what all the derp and people screaming NOOOOOO at this. It comes down to this. You have armed guards and great security in the entrances, or you say fark it and accept that crazy farkers might come in and fire the place up. At least with armed security, they might have a farking chance to take a shooter down. If there was no security, the guy could just walk around shooting whoever he wants. If i had a choice at my kids school between them having no hope of survival, or someone or someones there that could take down a bad guy, i would vote for the protection. Better that than just laying there hoping not to get shot.
 
2012-12-24 01:02:27 PM

Weatherkiss: Tax money set aside for installing a panic button alongside fire alarms in every school, regulated by similar laws as the fire alarms. Hit one button for the fire alarm. Hit the one right next to it for the panic button.

Crazy gunman (or other criminals that would warrant the use of hitting that button) show up, someone hits the button -- signal is sent directly to the local police who send the SWAT team. This is different from simply calling the cops. You hit the panic button and you know that lives are at stake.

We don't need a fire engine parked outside the school all the time. We don't need armed guards parked outside either.

We also can't 100% avoid these attacks, but we can do everything we can, and do it efficiently and financially viable.

So, yeah. Panic buttons in schools. Cheaper than armed guards.


I'd be okay with that.

/but it would still be a good idea to have a teacher or two armed (a volunteer obviously, not mandated) to help slow said threat down.
//fires take longer to spread then crazy people with guns.
///utah allows volunteer teachers concealed carry at school, seems to be working out well for them.
 
2012-12-24 01:04:07 PM

Fart_Machine: I laugh at you because you are ignorant of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled caveats on the Amendments you consider absolute. Heller didn't remove all statewide restrictions currently on the books for firearms and I invite you to exercise your absolute right to yell fire in a crowded theater and see what happens.


You seem to be missing the point. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The 2nd amendment was written as an absolute right. Im not sure how you and I can be reading it so differently. The SC agrees with me. Even though they have allowed some restrictions they have done so hesitantly as well they should. Just because they have allowed some restrictions doesnt mean that rights arent rights anymore. That is what Im saying. All the calls in this thread to completely take away, from law abiding people, the right to have guns is simply not allowed. Having onerous restrictions is not allowed. That is the nature of a right. You keep dancing around trying to convince me that a right is not a right. That a right is a priviledge. It is not. Priviledges can be given with all the stipulations and restrictions that you want. They can be revoked at any time. Rights cannot. To compare driving with gun ownership is not genuine. Cars are a priviledge. Now if you want to make a new amendment where guns are a priviledge or ban them altogether go for it. You can try. But to sit here and say that as of right now we dont have the inalienable right to have guns is a dangerous argument. Because the document we base all our laws on says explicitly that we do.
 
2012-12-24 01:04:54 PM

VendorXeno: "According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed."

What...the....fark. The master journalists at the Standard can't even bother to find out whether the CRUX of their farkING ARTICLE is valid or not? I mean, I know it's a rag but this right here...this is the real thing. "We're right because we presume, without doing any investigating at all..."


This was exactly my reaction when reading the article, facts be damned, we'll just presume what supports our desired outcome and run with it. My god, they'll just let anyone post anything they want on the Internet!
 
2012-12-24 01:06:22 PM

Nutsac_Jim: And who is saying all schools need armed guards, except you? LaPierre stated that on a case by case basis, if the local administration and community felt they wanted it, they should do it as a gun free sign out front provides little protection.


I don't know who told you that, but your source of information is either misinformed or intentionally lying to you. LaPierre explicitly called for armed guards in every school. These are his actual words:

I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school - and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.
 
2012-12-24 01:06:31 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Wayne 985: Anyway, I've been saying it from the start: more security at schools, tightening gun restrictions, and more immediate access to mental healthcare.

I agree on the first and last - no question, but the middle one.. depends on what you have in mind.

I see no evidence that the "assault' weapon ban or clip size matters much. The ban was in effect during Columbine for instance. The Virginia Tech shooter had two handguns. I don't think the type of gun is the issue, nor do I think limiting law abiding gun ownership will have any effect whatsoever on gun crime.

However, if you mean tightening restrictions on secondary market gun sales, I might be inclined to agree so long as it could be fashioned in a way that it did not in any way infringe on individual to individual gun sales. I think even a rational gun enthusiast can agree that there is a problem with the 'gun show loophole' and it is the main contributer to the bulk of gun crime - armed gang violence.


Ban or restrictions on high capacity magazines/clips, mandatory registration for every firearm, and closing of the "gun show loophole" would be my big concerns.

I'd be in favor of an "assault weapon ban", but I'm not sure how practical that is. Lanza's Bushmaster would not even have qualified, because the wording on those laws is often so narrow and outdated.
 
2012-12-24 01:09:01 PM
Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.
 
2012-12-24 01:09:45 PM

kxs401: Don't forget, the NRA is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers. They don't care about you, your safety, your rights, or the Constitution.



Dang. I've been suckered. Here all along the NSSF has been telling me that they're the trade association for the manufacturers. And the NRA has been lying and saying they've been consistently going to court over constitutional issues.

What do I know? I'm off to try to order some more high capacity "clips".
 
2012-12-24 01:10:53 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: I laugh at you because you are ignorant of the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled caveats on the Amendments you consider absolute. Heller didn't remove all statewide restrictions currently on the books for firearms and I invite you to exercise your absolute right to yell fire in a crowded theater and see what happens.

You seem to be missing the point. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The 2nd amendment was written as an absolute right. Im not sure how you and I can be reading it so differently. The SC agrees with me. Even though they have allowed some restrictions they have done so hesitantly as well they should. Just because they have allowed some restrictions doesnt mean that rights arent rights anymore. That is what Im saying. All the calls in this thread to completely take away, from law abiding people, the right to have guns is simply not allowed. Having onerous restrictions is not allowed. That is the nature of a right. You keep dancing around trying to convince me that a right is not a right. That a right is a priviledge. It is not. Priviledges can be given with all the stipulations and restrictions that you want. They can be revoked at any time. Rights cannot. To compare driving with gun ownership is not genuine. Cars are a priviledge. Now if you want to make a new amendment where guns are a priviledge or ban them altogether go for it. You can try. But to sit here and say that as of right now we dont have the inalienable right to have guns is a dangerous argument. Because the document we base all our laws on says explicitly that we do.


You don't know what the definition of absolute is apparently. Having restrictions doesn't make something absolute.
 
2012-12-24 01:12:28 PM

jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.


Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.
 
2012-12-24 01:13:15 PM

Fart_Machine: The_Gallant_Gallstone: Fart_Machine: So every school hires armed security guards, inflates the costs, and then some kid gets shot accidentally and we have the debate over WTF are armed security guards doing in our schools. Brilliant!

Won't be an issue... we just get highly trained professionals to serve as armed guards at schools for the 1% and say "Fark it" for the rest.

/ problem solved

Most affluent school districts don't employ armed security guards.


The one I was at did. And it was pretty darn ritzy.

Of course, no one is saying that an armed guard will prevent 100% of incidences. That would be silly. But they would be a darn sight better than no armed guard. (And historically, this is how it has played out, but I will let you google the numbers for yourselves.)

It would be like saying "Since the police haven't prevented crimes, we don't need police." But I don't see anyone saying that.
 
2012-12-24 01:13:51 PM

Nutsac_Jim: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

And who is saying all schools need armed guards, except you? LaPierre stated that on a case by case basis, if the local administration and community felt they wanted it, they should do it as a gun free sign out front provides little protection.


Uhh... but that's already the way it is. So what was he proposing, then?
 
2012-12-24 01:15:39 PM

ongbok: Fark It: ongbok: Fark It: ongbok: And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.

Clearly the rules don't apply to gun control advocates, only evil, racist, child-murdering NRA gun-fappers, amirite?

So know you are going to demand that every reporter that does a report on something illegal, and as a part of that report shows an example of that illegal item, be arrested? Or suggest that their report or what ever point they were trying to make is now invalid because they showed an example of what they were reporting on? If that was the case then a lot of reporters that did reports on drugs would be in jail and discredited now.

You guys sure do come up with some weak pathetic arguments.

Show us an example of a reporter reporting on a prohibited item and possessing said item on his/her person, on camera, on live TV, where such an item is expressly and notably prohibited. Go on.

You're calling us pathetic? You're equating possession of a prohibited item with "showing an example of that illegal item." Since when do reporters bring props into the studio when they report on drug busts?

/we get it, the rules don't apply to gun control advocates when they're pushing an agenda

Geraldo Rivera did it many times in the 80's with his reports on drugs. Even recently there was an MSNBC special about marijuana in the U.S were the reporter was interviewing growers, who had their faces blurred, while walking through their fields of marijuana. Or how about the recent stories about cocaine were the reporters go and interview the people that process cocaine in Colombia?


If the reporter who was doing a story on the drug war actually purchased drugs off the street for his story. I don't think the police would care why he did the drug deal , just that he did the drug deal. Interviewing someone about a crime that they are committing and actually committing the crime yourself so you can report on it are completely.

It is a silly issue anyway. He may have well gotten it from the DC police's confiscated inventory for the story.
 
2012-12-24 01:17:10 PM

Vectron: Celebrities Call to Ban Guns From .........Government .


awesome
 
2012-12-24 01:17:13 PM

Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.


just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.
 
2012-12-24 01:17:59 PM
For liberals I see this whole series of stories continues to be "This is the perfect crisis for us to do what we want and we're going to exploit the hell out of it! Don't you dare say or do anything that makes it harder for us or you will face the wrath of our temper tantrums!"

The threats to march on NRA headquarters were particularly cute since the NRA has never had anything to do with the mass shootings that occur in schools.

If a large group of people had marched on a major bastion for the religion of Islam after the Ft Hood shooting what do you suppose these same anti-NRA/anti-2nd Amendment people would say about it?
 
2012-12-24 01:19:13 PM
Completely different even.
 
2012-12-24 01:19:38 PM

cuzsis: Fart_Machine: The_Gallant_Gallstone: Fart_Machine: So every school hires armed security guards, inflates the costs, and then some kid gets shot accidentally and we have the debate over WTF are armed security guards doing in our schools. Brilliant!

Won't be an issue... we just get highly trained professionals to serve as armed guards at schools for the 1% and say "Fark it" for the rest.

/ problem solved

Most affluent school districts don't employ armed security guards.

The one I was at did. And it was pretty darn ritzy.

Of course, no one is saying that an armed guard will prevent 100% of incidences. That would be silly. But they would be a darn sight better than no armed guard. (And historically, this is how it has played out, but I will let you google the numbers for yourselves.)

It would be like saying "Since the police haven't prevented crimes, we don't need police." But I don't see anyone saying that.


Having police is different than saying you need an armed guard at every school. It's as silly as saying we need to ban all guns which I don't believe in either.
 
2012-12-24 01:20:43 PM

Fart_Machine: You don't know what the definition of absolute is apparently. Having restrictions doesn't make something absolute.


You seem to not know what the definition of right OR inalienable means. Let me enlighten you. Natural right- They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. Inalienable - incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred, nontransferable, not able to be conveyed, quod abalienari non potest, secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable

So if you create a document outlying inalienable rights by that very language you have made putting restrictions or banning very difficult. In the real world many different inalienable rights have to coexist. In this example the inalienable right for 20 6 years old to have life and liberty are coming in direct conflict with the inalienable right to have guns and so we have to find a way to balance the two but that is not the debate. The debate seems to be that even though the Consitituion lists gun ownership as an inalienable right that it needs to be taken away just like that. It cant happen like that if we respect the Constitution. Remember what we went through to have the rights we do have. Remember the blood shed and the pain endured. Dont be so quick to throw it away. That is simply my point.
 
2012-12-24 01:20:51 PM

Fark It: ongbok: Fark It: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: s2s2s2: ongbok: like it didn't stop other mass shootings

Like which ones?

VA Tech, and apparently Columbine from what I have learned.

Columbine had an armed guard

Virginia Tech had a police force, and Ft Hood is a military base.

And what point are you making? They didn't stop the mass shootings there did they? I know at least a requirement that people should have a mental health screening and those deemed to be mentally unfit can't buy firearms probably would have stopped the VA Tech shootings. The other two, I don't know.

The VA Tech shooter should have had his records submitted to the NICS and been barred from buying his weapons. The state failed to do so. That is not a failure of federal gun law, it's a failure of the state of Virginia to protect its citizens.

If I'm not mistaken, the VA Tech shooter didn't have a criminal record and had never been committed to a mental health facility, so he could legally purchase a gun. The NICS wouldn't have information on what he was diagnosed with because of privacy laws, it would only have information on his mental condition if he had ever been committed. If there had also been a requirement that he receive a mental health screening as a part of his application for a gun he probably would have been deemed unfit and not allowed to legally purchase one.

Cho was adjudicated mentally unsound in 2005. He should have never been allowed to legally buy a gun.


Actually under Virgina law he was able to buy guns and his records wouldn't have been sent to NICS.
Because Cho was not involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as an inpatient, he was still legally eligible to buy guns under Virginia law So there does need to be some type of federal standard regarding mental health and a mental health screening for gun purchases. Also there are many people who are mentally unstable who have haven't had a run in with the law so they are unknown that would be in NICS or have any record of their condition.

Fark It: ongbok: Geraldo Rivera did it many times in the 80's with his reports on drugs. Even recently there was an MSNBC special about marijuana in the U.S were the reporter was interviewing growers, who had their faces blurred, while walking through their fields of marijuana. Or how about the recent stories about cocaine were the reporters go and interview the people that process cocaine in Colombia?

Jesus Christ you are an idiot. Your examples are in no way, shape, or form comparable. It is illegal to possess 30-round "high capacity" magazines in D.C. It is not illegal to interview drug traffickers or marijuana growers.


So Geraldo holding a bag of cocaine in his hand that he had just purchased as a part of a story on drugs isn't comparable? Or standing in a field of illegal drugs as a part of your story isn't comp[arable?
You don't think if you got caught in the middle of a filed of weed you wouldn't be arrested? Here is a news flash, reporters are given leway when they do reports on this type of stuff.

And sir you are the idiot for trying to argue that him holding an illegal magazine during an interview were it is relevant somehow diminishes the point he is making, and an even bigger idiot for trying to claim that somehow the NRA and other idiots like you are being victimized because he "got away" with having it during the interview.

If this whole thing about the magazine is all you got then you're argument is not only weak, it is idiotic.
 
2012-12-24 01:22:10 PM
So are we redefining this as everyone wants to have their children go to school with at least half a dozen armed guards because the NRA does not want to restrict gun ownership when it might be creating a problem.

I don't want good people to lose the right to have guns, but to the NRA the right to have guns is above everything else. Can we step back and say that other freedoms are important too?

Why does conservative 'less government' these days mean continually expanding police powers?

/Not that Obama is an angel either.
 
2012-12-24 01:22:28 PM

randomjsa: For liberals I see this whole series of stories continues to be "This is the perfect crisis for us to do what we want and we're going to exploit the hell out of it! Don't you dare say or do anything that makes it harder for us or you will face the wrath of our temper tantrums!"

The threats to march on NRA headquarters were particularly cute since the NRA has never had anything to do with the mass shootings that occur in schools.

If a large group of people had marched on a major bastion for the religion of Islam after the Ft Hood shooting what do you suppose these same anti-NRA/anti-2nd Amendment people would say about it?


I've said it before, but I'll say it again: you seem to have gotten really hysterical since November. I haven't been here terribly long, but I would read your posts and they were always very conservative (which is fine), but are now bordering on Freeper territory.

You're just constantly enraged and reducing everything to black and white "splitting".
 
2012-12-24 01:23:32 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.


There is a difference between "more important" and more likely to be harmed or exploited for political reasons....my kid is the most important thing in my very existence, however I am not naive enough to think that she needs armed protection like a child with a parent with a lot of public exposure/obscene amounts of money. I, personally, wouldn't want to be in the position which required my children to have armed overseers.
 
2012-12-24 01:24:33 PM

ongbok: If this whole thing about the magazine is all you got then you're argument is not only weak, it is idiotic.


It's the hypocrisy and the idea that gun control laws are for commoners, not political and media elites. And the Geraldo comparison is apt, it's just as illegal to possess drugs while reporting as it is to possess banned high capacity magazines.
 
2012-12-24 01:25:21 PM

Wayne 985: randomjsa: For liberals I see this whole series of stories continues to be "This is the perfect crisis for us to do what we want and we're going to exploit the hell out of it! Don't you dare say or do anything that makes it harder for us or you will face the wrath of our temper tantrums!"

The threats to march on NRA headquarters were particularly cute since the NRA has never had anything to do with the mass shootings that occur in schools.

If a large group of people had marched on a major bastion for the religion of Islam after the Ft Hood shooting what do you suppose these same anti-NRA/anti-2nd Amendment people would say about it?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: you seem to have gotten really hysterical since November. I haven't been here terribly long, but I would read your posts and they were always very conservative (which is fine), but are now bordering on Freeper territory.

You're just constantly enraged and reducing everything to black and white "splitting".


randomjsa has always and forever been a ninny
 
2012-12-24 01:26:19 PM

ficklefkrfark: Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.

There is a difference between "more important" and more likely to be harmed or exploited for political reasons....my kid is the most important thing in my very existence, however I am not naive enough to think that she needs armed protection like a child with a parent with a lot of public exposure/obscene amounts of money. I, personally, wouldn't want to be in the position which required my children to have armed overseers.


Those poor rich people and children of the rich and powerful. Every weekend we hear of another kidnapping and ransom. How dare anyone question their need for guards and security....
 
2012-12-24 01:28:43 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: You don't know what the definition of absolute is apparently. Having restrictions doesn't make something absolute.

You seem to not know what the definition of right OR inalienable means. Let me enlighten you. Natural right- They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. Inalienable - incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred, nontransferable, not able to be conveyed, quod abalienari non potest, secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable

So if you create a document outlying inalienable rights by that very language you have made putting restrictions or banning very difficult. In the real world many different inalienable rights have to coexist. In this example the inalienable right for 20 6 years old to have life and liberty are coming in direct conflict with the inalienable right to have guns and so we have to find a way to balance the two but that is not the debate. The debate seems to be that even though the Consitituion lists gun ownership as an inalienable right that it needs to be taken away just like that. It cant happen like that if we respect the Constitution. Remember what we went through to have the rights we do have. Remember the blood shed and the pain endured. Dont be so quick to throw it away. That is simply my point.


We were discussing absolute rights and restrictions which means they are not absolute. If you want to knock down some more strawmen regarding bans or move the goal posts some more, please continue.
 
2012-12-24 01:30:33 PM
Some people pay extra to send their children to Catholic school, it is a choice.

Some people may pay extra to send their children to secured schools, that is their choice.

I don't want the NRA to help decide that children should be conditioned to put up with more jack-booted TSA conditioning for their personal 'safety'.
 
2012-12-24 01:32:34 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.


Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.
 
2012-12-24 01:32:54 PM
I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:19 PM

Fart_Machine: We were discussing absolute rights and restrictions which means they are not absolute. If you want to knock down some more strawmen regarding bans or move the goal posts some more, please continue.


Strawman? I have not heard one talking head on tv, one politician, one left leaning farker argue anything but either total bans or such onerous regulations as to make having the right to have guns meaningless. You seem to take the view that if you make something so restrictive nobody can exercise the right that is not the same as taking away the right is what makes me shake my head. Why do you think poll taxes were struck down? Nothing inherently bad about making people pay to vote. You still have the right to vote there is simply a restriction on it. Well fortunately the Supreme Court didnt see it that way. They correctly came to the concustion that a heavily restricted right is not a right. Especially when the entire reason the restriction was put in place was to keep people from exercising that right. As the poll tax was written to do. Just because there is now an issue in which YOU want to take away the right of others to exercise doesnt make it a good thing. Call that a strawman all you want.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:46 PM

kxs401: it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't


Yes, it is.
 
2012-12-24 01:36:01 PM

xmasbaby: BSABSVR: Also, since the theme of the the thread seems to be a pointless and incorrect gotcha: Who under the age of 60 gives a Fark about David Gregory?

Man, I miss Tim Russert!


So much THIS.

David Gregory has no business sitting in that 'Meet The Press' chair. It's too late now, but NBC should have scooped up Jake Tapper to replace Gregory.

David Gregory is the same biased, talking-head, hack, that he was when he worked in Sacramento for KCRA TV.
 
2012-12-24 01:36:23 PM

St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.


They reacted negatively?

According to Gallup Polls, more Americans seem to think increased armed police presence at schools will be more effective than an assault weapon ban: Link

The 24/7 News Cycle reacted negatively because it makes for good controversy. The same people who brought you the "horse race" coverage of the election, trying to make it look neck-and-neck down to the wire want to make everything to be a controversy, everything to be a scandal. Something-gate.

Of course the NRA response would be "unpopular", that means more controversy, more talking heads, more political speeches, and they hope it means more ratings.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but it was an outlier in an overall trend of decreasing crime rates. However, saying that violent crime in the US has been dropping steadily since 1991 doesn't make for big ratings.
 
2012-12-24 01:36:33 PM
snyted.files.wordpress.com

TOUCHE
 
2012-12-24 01:38:08 PM

ficklefkrfark: There is a difference between "more important" and more likely to be harmed or exploited for political reasons


So you set your kids down and tell them that this guys kids
twimg0-a.akamaihd.net

deserve more security than do they because his might be exploited for political reasons where they might just get shot up.

Let me know what they have to say about that.
 
2012-12-24 01:38:37 PM
While we're pissing on the Bill of Rights lets piss on all of it! Next up, free speech must be regulated. Want to attend a church? Were is your mental health evaluation form? etc.
 
2012-12-24 01:39:05 PM
Gun Control is only to keep conservative whites from having guns. Inner city blacks and libs with money can always have guns
 
2012-12-24 01:39:41 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: We were discussing absolute rights and restrictions which means they are not absolute. If you want to knock down some more strawmen regarding bans or move the goal posts some more, please continue.

Strawman? I have not heard one talking head on tv, one politician, one left leaning farker argue anything but either total bans or such onerous regulations as to make having the right to have guns meaningless. You seem to take the view that if you make something so restrictive nobody can exercise the right that is not the same as taking away the right is what makes me shake my head. Why do you think poll taxes were struck down? Nothing inherently bad about making people pay to vote. You still have the right to vote there is simply a restriction on it. Well fortunately the Supreme Court didnt see it that way. They correctly came to the concustion that a heavily restricted right is not a right. Especially when the entire reason the restriction was put in place was to keep people from exercising that right. As the poll tax was written to do. Just because there is now an issue in which YOU want to take away the right of others to exercise doesnt make it a good thing. Call that a strawman all you want.


Thank you for proving my point.
 
2012-12-24 01:40:04 PM

Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.


This. When I went to High School from '92 to '96, we had a School Resource Officer.

He was a sworn Sheriff's Deputy. He carried a gun.

He directed traffic in the morning and after school. He was there in case drugs were found or if there was a serious fight, but most of the time he was more a social worker than anything else, there to make sure kids knew where their families could get help or access to programs.

That was around 20 years ago.

BTW, yeah before anybody says it didn't help at Columbine since they had an armed SRO, remember that until that point SRO's were trained to not fire first and not engage immediately, that armed people would take hostages and wait for the demands. That went out the window after Columbine. . .much like "just go along with the hijackers and you'll be OK" went out the window after 9/11.
 
2012-12-24 01:40:22 PM

Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.


My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.
 
2012-12-24 01:41:03 PM
Congratulations on missing the point and misunderstanding the conversation completely.
 
2012-12-24 01:41:23 PM

Silverstaff: According to Gallup Polls, more Americans seem to think increased armed police presence at schools will be more effective than an assault weapon ban: Link


This is no time for facts!
 
2012-12-24 01:41:28 PM

LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.


.
citation please?
 
2012-12-24 01:42:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ficklefkrfark: There is a difference between "more important" and more likely to be harmed or exploited for political reasons

So you set your kids down and tell them that this guys kids


deserve more security than do they because his might be exploited for political reasons where they might just get shot up.

Let me know what they have to say about that.


Do you often tell your kids that they'll be shot up?
 
2012-12-24 01:44:10 PM

david_gaithersburg: LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.

.
citation please?


LaPierre called upon congress to act. Basically, appropriate money at the Federal level to pay for it.
 
2012-12-24 01:44:19 PM
At the end of the day, if we spend all that money meant for guards on the students instead the long term outcomes would be better.
 
2012-12-24 01:44:47 PM

Fart_Machine: Thank you for proving my point.


Really? When the governor of one of the largest states goes on record as saying that forcibly removing guns from people is on the table that means I somehow talking in hyperbole? That im claiming that there is a prevailing idea to completely walk all over the 2nd amendment? So you are just going to sit there with your fingers in your ears because this is a right you dont like others to have so it will be ok to take it away and yet somehow my pointing out the wrongness of this means I am beating on strawmen?
 
2012-12-24 01:44:53 PM

Great_Milenko: Nutsac_Jim: How about retired police officers. They already are on a pension. An extra 20k a year will just be gravy for them.

Maybe they don't want to work anymore? I'm sure they will all appreciate being dragged back into the workplace just to satisfy your paranoia.


Maybe, just maybe, we don't draft retired police officers and only offer the job to those that want to do it.
How about that?
 
2012-12-24 01:45:59 PM

LargeCanine: david_gaithersburg: LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.

.
citation please?

LaPierre called upon congress to act. Basically, appropriate money at the Federal level to pay for it.


citation please?
 
2012-12-24 01:46:28 PM

david_gaithersburg: While we're pissing on the Bill of Rights lets piss on all of it! Next up, free speech must be regulated. Want to attend a church? Were is your mental health evaluation form? etc.


what the fark is wrong with you?
Because maybe at some point you won't be able to purchase any given killing machine of your choice your rights are being pissed upon? Get a farking grip.
When they stop sales of all guns and ammo and ALSO go house to house taking away guns then you can complain.
When they refuse to solve the problem of guns in schools with more guns in schools; Good.
 
2012-12-24 01:47:45 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: Thank you for proving my point.

Really? When the governor of one of the largest states goes on record as saying that forcibly removing guns from people is on the table that means I somehow talking in hyperbole? That im claiming that there is a prevailing idea to completely walk all over the 2nd amendment? So you are just going to sit there with your fingers in your ears because this is a right you dont like others to have so it will be ok to take it away and yet somehow my pointing out the wrongness of this means I am beating on strawmen?


Please point out where I said it was a right nobody should have or that I want it taken away. I'll wait. Just keep digging...
 
2012-12-24 01:49:57 PM

david_gaithersburg: LargeCanine: david_gaithersburg: LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.

.
citation please?

LaPierre called upon congress to act. Basically, appropriate money at the Federal level to pay for it.

citation please?


I doubt that the issue you have is that you need a link to LaPierre's speech.
 
2012-12-24 01:50:38 PM

Silverstaff: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.

They reacted negatively?

According to Gallup Polls, more Americans seem to think increased armed police presence at schools will be more effective than an assault weapon ban: Link

The 24/7 News Cycle reacted negatively because it makes for good controversy. The same people who brought you the "horse race" coverage of the election, trying to make it look neck-and-neck down to the wire want to make everything to be a controversy, everything to be a scandal. Something-gate.

Of course the NRA response would be "unpopular", that means more controversy, more talking heads, more political speeches, and they hope it means more ratings.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but it was an outlier in an overall trend of decreasing crime rates. However, saying that violent crime in the US has been dropping steadily since 1991 doesn't make for big ratings.


The NRA response was also to blame videogames and movies.
 
2012-12-24 01:54:41 PM

Silverstaff: Yeah, Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but it was an outlier in an overall trend of decreasing crime rates. However, saying that violent crime in the US has been dropping steadily since 1991 doesn't make for big ratings.


In fairness, violent crime as a whole has been dropping, but these mass slayings are happening with greater frequency.
 
2012-12-24 01:54:58 PM

kxs401: Dancin_In_Anson: kxs401: Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't

I can only assume that you regularly rail on people for wanting to have things that you afford yourself.

No, I'm saying that you can argue for armed guards in schools all you want to, but "this school has armed guards, therefore all schools need armed guards" is not a logical argument. Find a better one.


there's nothing illogical about it, other than of course all you working class heroes suddenly deciding that the rich deserve more protection for their children.

what's good for the goose...
 
2012-12-24 01:57:20 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.

Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.


if anything that speaks to the efficacy of armed security. These kids who are more likely to be targeted have security. That doesn't mean that security will not help kids just because they are less likely targets
 
2012-12-24 01:57:45 PM
1) some schools may need armed security because of their specific circumstances. that doesn't mean armed security is the answer to mass school shootings.

2) some schools may choose to have armed security. see above response

3) we don't know that they are in fact armed security at the Quaker school. and we have no context here; in a school with 200 kids 11 security ppl, right be excessive. 2000 kids? might not be enough. and again, see above response,

4) the children of potus go there, making it more of a target so extra security is warranted IMHO. see above response.

writer and subby are idiots if they think they got greggory on this one,
 
2012-12-24 01:58:23 PM

LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.


Well, define "federal action". Like, at all schools?
 
2012-12-24 02:00:53 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.

Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.

if anything that speaks to the efficacy of armed security. These kids who are more likely to be targeted have security. That doesn't mean that security will not help kids just because they are less likely targets


It's actually more of a deflection just like saying bans will deter criminals. I don't believe either is the case.
 
2012-12-24 02:01:10 PM

GAT_00: your argument


To be clear, I have no argument here. I am looking for the best statements that would lead to the best practices.
I do not believe that one's posting history bars them from making good points, even thought it has often pained me to agree with you. I believe your intentions are generally toward the good, so I always listen.

I am currently undergoing a revaluation of my views on the 2nd amendment. It says what it says, but what should we say today?
 
2012-12-24 02:02:22 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.


No one should ever accuse another person of hypocrisy because it's a logical fallacy? Well, there goes fark.
 
2012-12-24 02:04:46 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.

Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.

if anything that speaks to the efficacy of armed security. These kids who are more likely to be targeted have security. That doesn't mean that security will not help kids just because they are less likely targets

It's actually more of a deflection just like saying bans will deter criminals. I don't believe either is the case.


of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.
 
2012-12-24 02:05:03 PM

illbeinmybunk: 1) some schools may need armed security because of their specific circumstances. that doesn't mean armed security is the answer to mass school shootings.


since the washington elite like david gregory appear to think armed security is actually an answer to a school security risk, I think it is probably incumbent on you to explain how come it isn't at any other school.
 
2012-12-24 02:06:48 PM

Fart_Machine: Please point out where I said it was a right nobody should have or that I want it taken away. I'll wait. Just keep digging


You called me a troll for pointing out that wholesale banning or restrictions on gun ownership is completely against the Constitution. I have also read through the thread at all your posts and you appear to be on the side laughing at the NRA for making a suggestion that many others have made in the past. You also gave me a lot of grief about the very simple idea that rights are rights not priviledges. So if you trolled me good job but I got the impression you are all for gun bans or heavy restrictions despite what the Constitution says.
 
2012-12-24 02:07:10 PM

Fark It: ongbok: And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.

Clearly the rules don't apply to gun control advocates, only evil, racist, child-murdering NRA gun-fappers, amirite?


Absolutely. That's the whole concept of "social justice," after all. It's justice that favors those who are socialist, and punishes those who aren't.
 
2012-12-24 02:08:04 PM
www.theblaze.com

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.
 
2012-12-24 02:08:05 PM
Lets move the TSA from airports to Schools
 
2012-12-24 02:09:03 PM

skullkrusher: of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.


True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.
 
2012-12-24 02:10:45 PM

Virtue: Lets move the TSA from airports to Schools


Free-Thinking Independent Americans For A Stronger National Security State. Sounds about right.
 
2012-12-24 02:11:52 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: skullkrusher: of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.

True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.


Man... if you think that we're not already to the point of having undereducated, power-hungry dicks controlling our students' every move...
 
2012-12-24 02:13:15 PM

Marine1: Man... if you think that we're not already to the point of having undereducated, power-hungry dicks controlling our students' every move...


True, but I don't think adding even more under-educated, power-hungry dicks to the system is gonna help.
 
2012-12-24 02:13:28 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: skullkrusher: of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.

True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.


there's nothing to say that the security in Gregory's kids' school isn't overkill. Of course there's nothing to say it is underkill to totally make up a term. 11 armed guards isn't gonna be able to stop a coordinated attack by 20 highly trained jihadists, for example. The Secret Service would obviously be busy making sure that Malia and Sascha are safe rather than prioritizing the lives of the other students so they may or may not be much use in protecting them depending on the situation.
 
2012-12-24 02:14:49 PM

Marine1: LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.

Well, define "federal action". Like, at all schools?


Congressional action to appropriate the money, really. Anything the Feds fund is a Federal action. It always has strings attached, but that is another issue.

I have no issue with armed guards, many schools have them.

How about arming school staff or administeration trained and armed with bean bag shotguns? Volunteers can be trained and issued shotguns that are kept in locked safes. The NRA could provide training for free - they do that kind of thing all the time.

Much cheaper than full time armed guards. In my hometown high school, the PE teacher taught firearms safety with shotguns as part of the curriculum. He'd totally do this.
 
2012-12-24 02:15:08 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-24 02:16:55 PM

Brian Ryanberger: This is a lot like Al Gore lecturing us all on how we are killing the planet with everything we do in our lives and yet its ok for him to pollute the skies as he rides around on a jet telling lies everywhere.


Not really.

Gore was a twat waffle, but being against mandatory armed security in every schools doesn't mean you think it is wrong for some schools .
 
2012-12-24 02:16:57 PM

skullkrusher: True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.

there's nothing to say that the security in Gregory's kids' school isn't overkill. Of course there's nothing to say it is underkill to totally make up a term. 11 armed guards isn't gonna be able to stop a coordinated attack by 20 highly trained jihadists, for example. The Secret Service would obviously be busy making sure that Malia and Sascha are safe rather than prioritizing the lives of the other students so they may or may not be much use in protecting them depending on the situation.



they are all probably working cops and probably only a couple on duty at any given time because they are working their real jobs. probably need 11 on payroll just to get the schedule without any holes. just a guess.
 
2012-12-24 02:18:30 PM

liam76: Gore was a twat waffle, but being against mandatory armed security in every schools doesn't mean you think it is wrong for some schools .


?
 
2012-12-24 02:19:16 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.


Which is why I favor mandatory firearms training and CCW licenses for teachers, instead of separate armed guards. If a teacher can't be trusted to accurately identify threats, how can she be trusted to accurately identify bullying? If a teacher can't be trusted not to go postal if they have a gun, why should she be trusted not to go postal with anything else at hand? If a teacher can't keep the kids from grabbing her gun, how can she keep the kids from grabbing any of the lab equipment she keeps stored?
 
2012-12-24 02:21:21 PM
Senator Diane Feinstein is a strong advocate of gun control---for the commoners.

However she carries a concealed pistol for her own protection.

I do not see too many aristocrats willing to put themserlves in the same danger the common people are expected to endure.

Double standard as usual?
 
2012-12-24 02:22:17 PM

Tatterdemalian: Which is why I favor mandatory firearms training and CCW licenses for teachers, instead of separate armed guards. If a teacher can't be trusted to accurately identify threats, how can she be trusted to accurately identify bullying? If a teacher can't be trusted not to go postal if they have a gun, why should she be trusted not to go postal with anything else at hand? If a teacher can't keep the kids from grabbing her gun, how can she keep the kids from grabbing any of the lab equipment she keeps stored?


Why should our teachers teach, when they can just stand in permanent Condition Yellow over a class of potential armed threats?
 
2012-12-24 02:23:08 PM
There's too much stupid in this thread to read the whole thing, but we haven't verified that these security guys are actual armed police right? They could be just dudes in clip on ties and ill fitting flammable blazers.
 
2012-12-24 02:25:09 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Why should our teachers teach, when they can just stand in permanent Condition Yellow over a class of potential armed threats?


Why should our CCW licensees have any jobs, when they're all obviously too paranoid to interact with anyone else and should all be locked up?
 
2012-12-24 02:26:16 PM
It's almost as if the left is taking a play from the right-wing. If we can't remove guns now, let's put enough regulations on owning one that it is very difficult to do. Kind of like the regulations put on abortion providers in the past few months. They didn't outright ban abortion, but by putting harsh regulations on the facilities, abortions are harder too come by in several states.

Sucks to be hit with your own tactics, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-24 02:26:46 PM
assets.diylol.com
 
2012-12-24 02:29:45 PM

liam76: Brian Ryanberger: This is a lot like Al Gore lecturing us all on how we are killing the planet with everything we do in our lives and yet its ok for him to pollute the skies as he rides around on a jet telling lies everywhere.

Not really.

Gore was a twat waffle, but being against mandatory armed security in every schools doesn't mean you think it is wrong for some schools .



you got it mixed up.

being against security in some schools doesn't mean you are against it in all schools. You wording totally backwards. Being against security in all schools would include whatever schools fall into the "some" category
 
2012-12-24 02:30:08 PM

relcec: liam76: Gore was a twat waffle, but being against mandatory armed security in every schools doesn't mean you think it is wrong for some schools .

?


What is too complicated for you there?
 
2012-12-24 02:33:14 PM

liam76: relcec: liam76: Gore was a twat waffle, but being against mandatory armed security in every schools doesn't mean you think it is wrong for some schools .

?

What is too complicated for you there?


sorry, I kept missing a word for some reason. why is it wrong for other schools? too expensive?
and no one said anything was mandatory.
 
2012-12-24 02:33:24 PM

stirfrybry: liam76: Brian Ryanberger: This is a lot like Al Gore lecturing us all on how we are killing the planet with everything we do in our lives and yet its ok for him to pollute the skies as he rides around on a jet telling lies everywhere.

Not really.

Gore was a twat waffle, but being against mandatory armed security in every schools doesn't mean you think it is wrong for some schools .


you got it mixed up.

being against security in some schools doesn't mean you are against it in all schools. You wording totally backwards. Being against security in all schools would include whatever schools fall into the "some" category


My wording isn't backwards.

Maybe you missed the mandatory part.
 
2012-12-24 02:35:40 PM
'meet the press' airs on sunday. he picked his kid up from school on a sunday? was it an armed and guarded sunday school? because that sounds just like what republican jesus would have wanted...

/merry xmas politics tab
//may your flames be merry and bright :-)
 
2012-12-24 02:36:18 PM
Gregory's point was that putting armed guards in every school is not a solution to gun violence in America. That's very different from saying no schools should employ armed guards. Then again, conservatives were never known for their attention to nuance or logic, so subby gets some slack.
 
2012-12-24 02:36:42 PM

Tatterdemalian: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.

Which is why I favor mandatory firearms training and CCW licenses for teachers, instead of separate armed guards. If a teacher can't be trusted to accurately identify threats, how can she be trusted to accurately identify bullying? If a teacher can't be trusted not to go postal if they have a gun, why should she be trusted not to go postal with anything else at hand? If a teacher can't keep the kids from grabbing her gun, how can she keep the kids from grabbing any of the lab equipment she keeps stored?


This is a gem of lunacy. The tone and content is just priceless - it glosses over the fact that almost no one that would want to be a teacher would want anything to do with carrying a gun. I just wacks out into crazyville speculation to rebut imaginary objections - "Oh the kids are gonna grab her gun, huh? Well - no way, because - lab equipment! Take that!"
 
2012-12-24 02:39:41 PM

Tatterdemalian: Why should our CCW licensees have any jobs, when they're all obviously too paranoid to interact with anyone else and should all be locked up?


Why should I bother having a discussion with you if you're going to fly off into the Magical Land of Stupid Hyperbole at the drop of a hat?

I have no problems if someone with a CCW can and wants to teach. Not everyone in America, and especially not everyone in the classroom, has or wants that mentality.
 
2012-12-24 02:39:51 PM

noitsnot: This is a gem of lunacy. The tone and content is just priceless - it glosses over the fact that almost no one that would want to be a teacher would want anything to do with carrying a gun.


Maybe that's the part of the public school system that needs to be fixed.

/what, are you afraid of change?
//oh right, the status quo is a GOOD thing when it's controlled by the left
 
2012-12-24 02:40:44 PM

relcec: liam76: relcec: liam76: Gore was a twat waffle, but being against mandatory armed security in every schools doesn't mean you think it is wrong for some schools .

?

What is too complicated for you there?

sorry, I kept missing a word for some reason. why is it wrong for other schools? too expensive?
and no one said anything was mandatory.


If you are calling on the fed to take action on something like this that is normally what it means.

In a public school, yes cost comes into play. And before people cry about not caring about poor kids, they have a lot of more important issues to worry about than mass shooters. If we were funding public schools on par with the school in question a conversation on the value of armed guards may be worth entertaining.

The other issue to look at is risk. What are the chances that an average school gets stacked by a mass murderer? What are the odds that someone will try and go after one of the kids in the school in question?
 
2012-12-24 02:44:31 PM

Fart_Machine: walkingtall: Fart_Machine: Thank you for proving my point.

Really? When the governor of one of the largest states goes on record as saying that forcibly removing guns from people is on the table that means I somehow talking in hyperbole? That im claiming that there is a prevailing idea to completely walk all over the 2nd amendment? So you are just going to sit there with your fingers in your ears because this is a right you dont like others to have so it will be ok to take it away and yet somehow my pointing out the wrongness of this means I am beating on strawmen?

Please point out where I said it was a right nobody should have or that I want it taken away. I'll wait. Just keep digging...


The SS would need guns, so it's clear you were not saying that nobody should have guns.
 
2012-12-24 02:46:38 PM

divgradcurl: 'meet the press' airs on sunday. he picked his kid up from school on a sunday? was it an armed and guarded sunday school? because that sounds just like what republican jesus would have wanted...

/merry xmas politics tab
//may your flames be merry and bright :-)


hey, this isn't even in the politics tab! well i guess main pagers get to have some fun also. so murry christmas to you guys too
 
2012-12-24 02:46:52 PM
The Catch 22 of firearms: the more guns in the hands of the law abiding, the more guns are going to be in the hands of criminals.

Also - gun manufacturers are running profit-making businesses. One needs to look at their marketing efforts with the same healthy skepticism one looks at the marketing efforts of any corporation. No matter the issue, one always needs to Follow The Money.
 
2012-12-24 02:49:19 PM

Tatterdemalian: Maybe that's the part of the public school system that needs to be fixed.

/what, are you afraid of change?
//oh right, the status quo is a GOOD thing when it's controlled by the left


No, sorry, we're not conforming to your fears just because you can't conform to ours. Why are you afraid of change?
 
2012-12-24 02:49:22 PM

liam76: sorry, I kept missing a word for some reason. why is it wrong for other schools? too expensive?
and no one said anything was mandatory.

If you are calling on the fed to take action on something like this that is normally what it means.



that's not usually how government works, especially when the feds are entering ground occupied by the states. they offer a carrot and a stick. no mandate.
 
2012-12-24 02:50:07 PM
An armed guard at each school, combined with policies to lower the number of semiautomatics in society. And the ability to fast-track psychiatrically commit the potentially homicidal. That's an effective approach.
 
2012-12-24 02:55:57 PM

JungleBoogie: And the ability to fast-track psychiatrically commit the potentially homicidal.


Timid loner who likes to play video games? That's a committin'.
 
2012-12-24 02:59:02 PM

JungleBoogie: the ability to fast-track psychiatrically commit the potentially homicidal. That's an effective approach.


Isn't anyone with a gun "potentially homicidal"?
 
2012-12-24 03:01:19 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: No, sorry, we're not conforming to your fears just because you can't conform to ours. Why are you afraid of change?


Because the changes being proposed have been implemented many times in many other countries in the last century alone, and the result has always been the complete elimination of individual freedom and the creation of an authoritarian state.

/seriously, it's not like you can feign ignorance of either recent history or the definition of insanity any more
//so that leaves your only motivation being the desire to see the free world burn down so you can try to become tyrant of the ashes
///better to be king of hell than a mere president of heaven, after all
 
2012-12-24 03:04:41 PM
Only liberals and socialists should have their children protected. Any other ideology indoctrinating a child should place that child at risk. We need re-education camps and people's courts. Guns should only be allowed in the military, and special security details for liberals and socialists only. Ban everything else. Raise all taxes to the levels of church tithing. Ban all organized religions. Ban all thought that doesn't comply to the goals of the state. Kill those who disagree.

/amidoinitright?
 
2012-12-24 03:04:56 PM

LargeCanine: Marine1: LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.

Well, define "federal action". Like, at all schools?

Congressional action to appropriate the money, really. Anything the Feds fund is a Federal action. It always has strings attached, but that is another issue.

I have no issue with armed guards, many schools have them.

How about arming school staff or administeration trained and armed with bean bag shotguns? Volunteers can be trained and issued shotguns that are kept in locked safes. The NRA could provide training for free - they do that kind of thing all the time.

Much cheaper than full time armed guards. In my hometown high school, the PE teacher taught firearms safety with shotguns as part of the curriculum. He'd totally do this.


Heh. Firearms safety as a part of the curriculum.

Boy did we grow up in far different worlds.
 
2012-12-24 03:06:10 PM

whatshisname: JungleBoogie: the ability to fast-track psychiatrically commit the potentially homicidal. That's an effective approach.

Isn't anyone with a gun "potentially homicidal"?


Anyone with a dick is equipped to commit rape, shouldn't we lock those up too?

(Or just register them)
 
2012-12-24 03:09:01 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Oh, I remember now! Heh. Day-em! You really are good at the pretzel logic.


Now that's praise from Caesar.
 
2012-12-24 03:09:17 PM
The only school I attended where nobody thought armed security was a priority was in Saudi Arabia.
 
2012-12-24 03:09:44 PM

whatshisname: JungleBoogie: the ability to fast-track psychiatrically commit the potentially homicidal. That's an effective approach.

Isn't anyone with a gun "potentially homicidal"?


True. But some have a higher potential than others.
 
2012-12-24 03:12:09 PM

special20: Only liberals and socialists should have their children protected. Any other ideology indoctrinating a child should place that child at risk. We need re-education camps and people's courts. Guns should only be allowed in the military, and special security details for liberals and socialists only. Ban everything else. Raise all taxes to the levels of church tithing. Ban all organized religions. Ban all thought that doesn't comply to the goals of the state. Kill those who disagree.

/amidoinitright?


I once turned the heat up in a room. Someone walked in and said, "Oh my God, it's like a blast furnace in here!"

// Hyperbole. Not just a geometric shape, anymore.
 
2012-12-24 03:12:23 PM

Tatterdemalian: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: No, sorry, we're not conforming to your fears just because you can't conform to ours. Why are you afraid of change?

Because the changes being proposed have been implemented many times in many other countries in the last century alone, and the result has always been the complete elimination of individual freedom and the creation of an authoritarian state.

/seriously, it's not like you can feign ignorance of either recent history or the definition of insanity any more
//so that leaves your only motivation being the desire to see the free world burn down so you can try to become tyrant of the ashes
///better to be king of hell than a mere president of heaven, after all


Hey, we just want people to stop worshiping the gun. King George III isn't coming back. The only countries in any position to invade the US are Canada and Mexico. There will be people scared to death of the government for whatever reason they can think of.

I've suggested a variety of things we can do to work on the problem, such as better mental health care, reform the prison system to actually help and rehabilitate prisoners, tackling the root causes of crime such as poverty, better regulation and tracking of weapons, and a fundamental shift in America's attitude towards guns and violence. But apparently those are too expensive, would take too long to do, and "Fark the poor, homeless, and retards". The only solution many people want to see is "More guns! More guns! Guns for everyone and for everywhere!", because adding more of what's part of the problem always fixes the problem.
 
2012-12-24 03:12:51 PM

what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.


The hard bit will be puttingenough armed guards in the school. One or two guards isn't going to cut it over the sizes of schools. Some campuses we dozens of acres with dozens of buildings. Such schools are likely to need a few dozen guards on duty minimum. So say 20-40 per school might help catch a shooter. That might save avoid 50 lives per decade if we are really lucky. Not bad for $200-500 billion a year.
 
2012-12-24 03:15:21 PM

olddinosaur: Anyone with a dick is equipped to commit rape, shouldn't we lock those up too?


Steven Hawking has a dick.  Is he equipped to commit rape?

Extrapolative Arguments!  To the Surrealmobile!
 
2012-12-24 03:20:46 PM

thamike: olddinosaur: Anyone with a dick is equipped to commit rape, shouldn't we lock those up too?

Steven Hawking has a dick.  Is he equipped to commit rape?

Extrapolative Arguments!  To the Surrealmobile!


Hawkins wheelchair is called the surreal mobile, and it helps with rape!

Guy keeps getting cooler!
 
KIA
2012-12-24 03:23:33 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: There will be people scared to death of the government for whatever reason they can think of.


Yes, because governments have never done evil.

Even the US Government.

Ever.

Therefore fear of government is irrational. It is always there to help solve a problem or commiserate in a hard time. It's like a best friend composed of faceless bureaucrats thousands of miles away whose sole interest is to make your personal life better. After all, if your personal life was already fantastic, you wouldn't need a best friend, would you?

/ sarcasm off. Off, I say!
 
2012-12-24 03:24:37 PM
what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.


How bout we take 5 billion out of the 100 billion losses for loan guarantees to green energy companies instead. We will let you keep the 95% waste just give us 5% to protect the chriddren
 
2012-12-24 03:26:12 PM

Jarhead_h: sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net


I agree.

Gun ownership should be limited to those qualified for the Secret Service.
 
2012-12-24 03:26:25 PM

thamike: olddinosaur: Anyone with a dick is equipped to commit rape, shouldn't we lock those up too?

Steven Hawking has a dick.  Is he equipped to commit rape?

Extrapolative Arguments!  To the Surrealmobile!


You never know.
 
2012-12-24 03:26:33 PM

thamike: olddinosaur: Anyone with a dick is equipped to commit rape, shouldn't we lock those up too?

Steven Hawking has a dick.  Is he equipped to commit rape?

Extrapolative Arguments!  To the Surrealmobile!


Steven Hawking probably has a zero-point-energy powered exoskeleton at home just for rape night.
 
2012-12-24 03:30:52 PM

kxs401: Nabb1: kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?

Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.

Oh, clearly. All Americans should get exactly the same level of day-to-day protection. That makes perfect sense.


school security is a right not a privilege just for the %
 
2012-12-24 03:31:45 PM
I am gratified that this has morphed into a Stephen Hawking rape thread. That has a lot more promise for fresh ideas than the bi-daily Fark gun thread.
 
2012-12-24 03:43:32 PM
The NRA: by their own admission, selling you the disease, *and* the cure.
 
2012-12-24 03:50:30 PM
Police carry guns too, those complete baztards!!
 
2012-12-24 03:50:33 PM

KIA: Keizer_Ghidorah: There will be people scared to death of the government for whatever reason they can think of.

Yes, because governments have never done evil.

Even the US Government.

Ever.

Therefore fear of government is irrational. It is always there to help solve a problem or commiserate in a hard time. It's like a best friend composed of faceless bureaucrats thousands of miles away whose sole interest is to make your personal life better. After all, if your personal life was already fantastic, you wouldn't need a best friend, would you?

/ sarcasm off. Off, I say!


They have yet to do something that requires the populace to rise up and crush them.

Of course, the fact it exists is enough for some to want to rise up and crush them.
 
2012-12-24 03:55:37 PM

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


he is a semi closeted republican and probably choose the school based on the guards.

how the hell he ever got to host meet the press is beyond me. he is horrible at it.
 
2012-12-24 03:56:38 PM

ongbok: Geraldo Rivera did it many times in the 80's with his reports on drugs. Even recently there was an MSNBC special about marijuana in the U.S were the reporter was interviewing growers, who had their faces blurred, while walking through their fields of marijuana. Or how about the recent stories about cocaine were the reporters go and interview the people that process cocaine in Colombia?


There's a difference between talking to someone who is committing a crime, and actually committing it yourself. This is like a reporter doing a story about how easy it is to grow weed in your closet by actually growing weed in the TV station closet for a few weeks.
 
2012-12-24 04:01:57 PM
Keep your kids home. It's safer and really pisses off the teachers union.
 
2012-12-24 04:02:00 PM

snocone: So, the hypocracy and duplicity is alive and well in the Media.
This is my suprised face.

People, NONE of these talking heads really believe their own derp. They will Nanny you right into the pens and happily take their blood money from the New Orderlies.

/we can deport a few, start w/ Piers Morgan.


So none of these guys have their own opinions on the topics that make up their livelihood and lifelong career pursuit?

Gotcha.
 
2012-12-24 04:03:01 PM

ZeroPly: I am gratified that this has morphed into a Stephen Hawking rape thread. That has a lot more promise for fresh ideas than the bi-daily Fark gun thread.


Why don't you go back to chasing elk around and pissing them off with .223 wounds?
 
2012-12-24 04:08:13 PM

tonguedepressor: ZeroPly: I am gratified that this has morphed into a Stephen Hawking rape thread. That has a lot more promise for fresh ideas than the bi-daily Fark gun thread.

Why don't you go back to chasing elk around and pissing them off with .223 wounds?


You sound injured.
 
2012-12-24 04:08:18 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: david_gaithersburg: While we're pissing on the Bill of Rights lets piss on all of it! Next up, free speech must be regulated. Want to attend a church? Were is your mental health evaluation form? etc.

what the fark is wrong with you?
Because maybe at some point you won't be able to purchase any given killing machine of your choice your rights are being pissed upon? Get a farking grip.
When they stop sales of all guns and ammo and ALSO go house to house taking away guns then you can complain.
When they refuse to solve the problem of guns in schools with more guns in schools; Good.


www.thislosangeles.com
 
2012-12-24 04:10:55 PM

ZeroPly: tonguedepressor: ZeroPly: I am gratified that this has morphed into a Stephen Hawking rape thread. That has a lot more promise for fresh ideas than the bi-daily Fark gun thread.

Why don't you go back to chasing elk around and pissing them off with .223 wounds?

You sound injured.


A mere flesh wound.
 
2012-12-24 04:13:55 PM
www.lostrepublic.us
 
2012-12-24 04:15:57 PM

clane: [www.lostrepublic.us image 720x468]


I really wish there were an "Idiot" tag I could click.
 
2012-12-24 04:20:13 PM

Wayne 985: clane: [www.lostrepublic.us image 720x468]

I really wish there were an "Idiot" tag I could click.


.
Just list it in your profile.
 
2012-12-24 04:24:20 PM

JRoo: Gotta admit, the NRA has a solid business plan.

Every time a gun gets used, more guns get sold.

If people aren't afraid enough of criminals to buy more guns, then they'll buy them because they think the government is going to take them away.


You are aware that the NRA doesn't sell guns and that the majority of gun owners aren't members of the NRA?
 
2012-12-24 04:34:11 PM
What an idiot.
 
2012-12-24 04:41:59 PM

Fade2black: Notabunny: I love the smell of right wing desperation in the morning

And I love my side of Liberal Hypocrisy right next to my bowl of Oatmeal as well, tool.

[car.jpg]

I'm not even a gun nut (have literally never fired one outside of Paintball), and even I know the Liberal argument is about as retarded as it gets.


Oh, jeez. Fine. I'll bite. What liberal hypocrisy?
 
2012-12-24 04:43:34 PM
papundits.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-24 04:51:22 PM
So hes saying that we should have some sort of...federally mandated, universal care for all our children? Like...every school gets protection from threats? Even if they already had violence problems, or if they currently don't have violence problems and are unlikely to ever have any? Everybody contributes towards the health and safety of everybody else? Hmmm...that sounds like something conservatives have been big fans of recently...I just cant place my finger on what that was...
 
2012-12-24 04:58:08 PM
Internet Liberals 10-12 years ago:
" He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Internet Liberals today:
"Waaaaaaah school shooters are everywhere! Please start restricting our gun ownership rights so that we can be more secure"
 
2012-12-24 05:02:23 PM
Gregory has an agenda and he is a hypocrite. Not news.
 
2012-12-24 05:06:39 PM

clane:


How cute.
 
2012-12-24 05:07:27 PM

SlothB77: Gregory has an agenda and he is a hypocrite. Not news.


Yawn
 
2012-12-24 05:08:13 PM
Farking hypocrite.

/Independent.
//Grrrr
 
2012-12-24 05:12:26 PM

fugeeface: Farking hypocrite.

/Independent.
//Grrrr


You are getting upset over nothing.
 
2012-12-24 05:26:57 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-12-24 05:30:42 PM
Like black teenagers don't already have guns....


trollface.jpg
 
2012-12-24 05:33:47 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: Please point out where I said it was a right nobody should have or that I want it taken away. I'll wait. Just keep digging

You called me a troll for pointing out that wholesale banning or restrictions on gun ownership is completely against the Constitution. I have also read through the thread at all your posts and you appear to be on the side laughing at the NRA for making a suggestion that many others have made in the past. You also gave me a lot of grief about the very simple idea that rights are rights not priviledges. So if you trolled me good job but I got the impression you are all for gun bans or heavy restrictions despite what the Constitution says.


No I called you a troll for using a ridiculous straw man at the beginning of your post. Now since you've got nothing please stop trying to argue things I never said. Thanks.
 
2012-12-24 05:34:49 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Fart_Machine: walkingtall: Fart_Machine: Thank you for proving my point.

Really? When the governor of one of the largest states goes on record as saying that forcibly removing guns from people is on the table that means I somehow talking in hyperbole? That im claiming that there is a prevailing idea to completely walk all over the 2nd amendment? So you are just going to sit there with your fingers in your ears because this is a right you dont like others to have so it will be ok to take it away and yet somehow my pointing out the wrongness of this means I am beating on strawmen?

Please point out where I said it was a right nobody should have or that I want it taken away. I'll wait. Just keep digging...

The SS would need guns, so it's clear you were not saying that nobody should have guns.


You've got nothing either. Thanks for that.
 
2012-12-24 05:37:30 PM

special20: Only liberals and socialists should have their children protected. Any other ideology indoctrinating a child should place that child at risk. We need re-education camps and people's courts. Guns should only be allowed in the military, and special security details for liberals and socialists only. Ban everything else. Raise all taxes to the levels of church tithing. Ban all organized religions. Ban all thought that doesn't comply to the goals of the state. Kill those who disagree.

/amidoinitright?


walkingtall would be proud.
 
2012-12-24 05:43:14 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.

Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.

if anything that speaks to the efficacy of armed security. These kids who are more likely to be targeted have security. That doesn't mean that security will not help kids just because they are less likely targets

It's actually more of a deflection just like saying bans will deter criminals. I don't believe either is the case.

of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.


Or maybe administrators could make that determination for themselves instead of a blanket Federal mandate like the NRA want?
 
2012-12-24 05:44:37 PM

Buffalo77: what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.


How bout we take 5 billion out of the 100 billion losses for loan guarantees to green energy companies instead. We will let you keep the 95% waste just give us 5% to protect the chriddren


How are the schools going to pay back the loan?
 
2012-12-24 05:47:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: fugeeface: Farking hypocrite.

/Independent.
//Grrrr

You are getting upset over nothing.


THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GRRR'S!!!
 
2012-12-24 05:50:17 PM

Fart_Machine: Buffalo77: what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.


How bout we take 5 billion out of the 100 billion losses for loan guarantees to green energy companies instead. We will let you keep the 95% waste just give us 5% to protect the chriddren

How are the schools going to pay back the loan?


I'm just laughing at the "omgz green energy is wasteful" talking when we throw even more money at oil companies.

Free market my ass
 
2012-12-24 05:55:34 PM
And the farking idiots defending this farkstick in here are the same ones bashing the petition signers above.
 
2012-12-24 06:02:11 PM

planedr: And the farking idiots defending this farkstick in here are the same ones bashing the petition signers above.


What petition signers?
 
2012-12-24 06:07:37 PM

Mrtraveler01: planedr: And the farking idiots defending this farkstick in here are the same ones bashing the petition signers above.

What petition signers?


The Farkstick bashing idiot ones.

Try to keep up.
 
2012-12-24 06:13:16 PM
Going by the love and respect gushing from the well-informed hobbyists in this thread I'd want some security at my kids' school, too.
 
2012-12-24 06:24:37 PM
www.dogbreedinfo.com
 
2012-12-24 06:30:17 PM

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?


This. It is one thing to arm a school because it is in a dangerous area or as in this case, a private school where lots of important people send their kids too. It is another to propose arming every school in the country for the unlikely scenario that a psychopath will shoot the place up, in part due to your organization's policies on gun control.

/if MOAR GUNS are the answer, how many more do we need to get the gun crime rate down to where it is in other developed countries?
 
2012-12-24 06:55:43 PM

Buffalo77: what_now: Ok, let's say we put armed guards in every school. How do we pay for it?

Raise your hand if you support tax increases for this.


How bout we take 5 billion out of the 100 billion losses for loan guarantees to green energy companies instead. We will let you keep the 95% waste just give us 5% to protect the chriddren


How about we address the underlying causes for all of this violence and start doing something about them, instead of making retarded statements about completely unrelated things and thinking more guns will solve the problem of gun violence?
 
2012-12-24 06:56:32 PM

CrazyCracka420: People keep going back and forth like one side is right and the other is wrong.

There's nuances on both sides of the issue...

It would be good to have a gun registry (like we do for vehicles) so we know who owns what guns. if that gun is used in a crime, we can trace it back somewhere. At the same time, countries throughout history have taken away the civilians firearms to be able to do what they want with them (consolidating power), just look at Russia or China in the early 1900's.

Sure some people say having a 5 or 10 clip max on semi-auto rifles is enough to defend you and your family. But who's to say? What if 11 people are attacking your house, or you (FSM forbid) miss a shot or two, or don't one hit kill an intruder?

I honestly believe in gun regulations, but where do we draw the line? How do we ensure that civilians will always be able to stand up to a dictator who uses our military or police against it's own civilians? But how do we also ensure that we're preventing firearms from getting in the hands of criminals?

I don't think anyone has the easy answer, so for people to go back and forth so heated at each other is ridiculous.

I'm pretty farking liberal, but it really is true. When someone's rampaging with a gun, who's going to be able to stop them? Someone has to forcefully do it, unless they kill themselves. Maybe it's not with a gun, but it might make the job easier. But at the same time, it might make you a target for anyone else concealing a firearm, they may mistake you for the perp. Or you may hit an innocent person...

Stop acting like you furious keyboarders have all the answers. You don't.

The problem is mentally unstable people sometimes go on rampages. Maybe if our largest mental health institutions weren't prisons and jails (aka if we actually took mental health seriously in this country) we might not see so many of these rampaging looney's murdering children.

But keep arguing about the tool used for the killings, and not the root cause of why the people are going on rampages.

/end rant


Make a lot of good points, but two things I want to address:

1. If you are ambushed by 11 people, it is unlikely having a 11,000 bullet magazine will save you from harm.

2. Didn't the police use lethal force against its own citizens during a protest in 1937 in Puerto Rico? Where was the Second Amendment then? The sad reality is that if some decided to use the Second Amendment as the Founding Fathers intended there, the only thing it would have accomplished is more bloodshed, if not allow for propaganda to claim that the protesters became violent and lethal force was necessary.
 
2012-12-24 08:01:39 PM
Waaawaaa get the Government out of my life and let me kill babies!

Waaawaaa get the Government in my life and take away my right to own guns!

Waaawaaa get the government out of my life and let men marry men, women marry women, and fathers marry daughters!

Waaawaaa get the government in my life and take more and more money out of the free market!
 
2012-12-24 08:02:55 PM
I saw the interview. The only point Gregory made against armed guards was that it wasn't slam-dunk enough to consider it while refusing to consider gun control measures if the goal is in fact to try anything that might work.
 
2012-12-24 08:09:17 PM

clane: Waaawaaa get the Government out of my life and let me kill babies!

Waaawaaa get the Government in my life and take away my right to own guns!

Waaawaaa get the government out of my life and let men marry men, women marry women, and fathers marry daughters!

Waaawaaa get the government in my life and take more and more money out of the free market!


Are there moments when you don't say something stupid?

/merry Christmas from a godless heathen liberal
 
2012-12-24 08:10:18 PM

Abox: I saw the interview. The only point Gregory made against armed guards was that it wasn't slam-dunk enough to consider it while refusing to consider gun control measures if the goal is in fact to try anything that might work.


I am offended by his pragmatism.
 
2012-12-24 08:25:50 PM
Wow. Looking at the threads from the last few days, it sure looks like the left has their "rights stripping boner" in full raping hard on.

/Yes. Let's let the government protect us.
 
2012-12-24 08:32:53 PM

muck4doo: Wow. Looking at the threads from the last few days, it sure looks like the left has their "rights stripping boner" in full raping hard on.

/Yes. Let's let the government protect us.


Not as stupid as the "lets arm everyone" idiocy t hat the gun nuts seem to want.

I agree that having a police officer in schools is a good start. But it shouldn't be the only solution.
 
2012-12-24 08:33:57 PM

The Larch: I don't know who told you that, but your source of information is either misinformed or intentionally lying to you. LaPierre explicitly called for armed guards in every school. These are his actual words:
I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school - and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.


he called on Congress? I missed that part. What a lunatic. Yes, our government should mandate that we have even more guns around. It's just another sign of American exceptionalism.
 
2012-12-24 08:36:53 PM

Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: Wow. Looking at the threads from the last few days, it sure looks like the left has their "rights stripping boner" in full raping hard on.

/Yes. Let's let the government protect us.

Not as stupid as the "lets arm everyone" idiocy t hat the gun nuts seem to want.

I agree that having a police officer in schools is a good start. But it shouldn't be the only solution.


Let's put more cops everywhere. More cops =good. A cop for me and you and a dog named Boo.
 
2012-12-24 08:47:59 PM
Ha!
 
2012-12-24 08:48:38 PM

Indubitably: Ha!


To money
 
2012-12-24 09:15:22 PM

moothemagiccow: VA Tech has its own police force, that didn't stop the guy that shot 20some people on its campus.


I'm not in the "spend a ton of money on armed guards" category, but that argument really bugs me. At least you got it right that it was a police department, not just "armed guards" like talking heads on tv have been saying.

Saying that Virginia Tech has a police department is like saying that Newton Connecticut, Littleton Colorado, etc all had police departments. The NRA isnt asking us to put police departments in cities. They're asking us to put guards in individual school buildings.
If VT had an armed guard at every entrance to every building on campus, that would be an accurate comparison to the NRAs cooky idea for wasting money in our public schools. But that's not what the VTPD is.
 
2012-12-24 10:39:24 PM

muck4doo: Let's put more cops everywhere. More cops =good. A cop for me and you and a dog named Boo.


You read this thread and felt that the libs were the ones calling for cops everywhere?
 
2012-12-24 10:43:21 PM
Yes.

Recruiting, training, equipping, and paying an army of nosepickers to stand around and intimidate the children all day all year in our 130,000 public and private schools while providing no more than random chance prevention or protection against anything sounds like a FANTASTIC way to reduce taxes and the deficit.

That does it, I'm voting Republican!
 
2012-12-24 10:50:11 PM

BuckTurgidson: Yes.

Recruiting, training, equipping, and paying an army of nosepickers to stand around and intimidate the children all day all year in our 130,000 public and private schools while providing no more than random chance prevention or protection against anything sounds like a FANTASTIC way to reduce taxes and the deficit.

That does it, I'm voting Republican!


You are miseducated.
 
2012-12-25 12:00:42 AM

bulldg4life: muck4doo: Let's put more cops everywhere. More cops =good. A cop for me and you and a dog named Boo.

You read this thread and felt that the libs were the ones calling for cops everywhere?


I read it as the far left think people shouldn't have the right to carry fire arms, and only government stooges should have them to protect their pissing pantie selves. The far right thinks the government should have armed citizens protecting everyone. Welcome to the great circle of derp.
 
2012-12-25 12:02:32 AM

muck4doo: I read it as the far left think people shouldn't have the right to carry fire arms, and only government stooges should have them to protect their pissing pantie selves.


If you saw that in this thread, I can only assume that you have had far too much eggnog today. That strawman must be massive.
 
2012-12-25 12:14:59 AM

bulldg4life: muck4doo: I read it as the far left think people shouldn't have the right to carry fire arms, and only government stooges should have them to protect their pissing pantie selves.

If you saw that in this thread, I can only assume that you have had far too much eggnog today. That strawman must be massive.


Could be. Merry Christmas. :)
 
2012-12-25 12:51:16 AM
Does he also argue against universal healthcare while his kids are provided healthcare by his employer?
 
2012-12-25 06:54:29 AM
Every time this comes up, the NRA and it's Grand-Fudd (Wayne LaPierre) frantically try to shift the discussion to some frivolous fabricated side issue, hoping to blunt the focus of their opponents.

I don't see that happening this time.
 
2012-12-25 08:47:20 AM

relcec: liam76: sorry, I kept missing a word for some reason. why is it wrong for other schools? too expensive?
and no one said anything was mandatory.

If you are calling on the fed to take action on something like this that is normally what it means.


that's not usually how government works, especially when the feds are entering ground occupied by the states. they offer a carrot and a stick. no mandate.


How many states opted out of NCLB?

Anything tied to federal funds is a defacto mandate.
 
2012-12-25 09:10:36 AM

olddinosaur: whatshisname: JungleBoogie: the ability to fast-track psychiatrically commit the potentially homicidal. That's an effective approach.

Isn't anyone with a gun "potentially homicidal"?

Anyone with a dick is equipped to commit rape, shouldn't we lock those up too?

(Or just register them)


You would have to put serial numbers on them first
 
2012-12-25 11:00:32 AM

ongbok: Actually under Virgina law he was able to buy guns and his records wouldn't have been sent to NICS.
Because Cho was not involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as an inpatient, he was still legally eligible to buy guns under Virginia law So there does need to be some type of federal standard regarding mental health and a mental health screening for gun purchases. Also there are many people who are mentally unstable who have haven't had a run in with the law so they are unknown that would be in NICS or have any record of their condition.


But from your own cite, above the cut quote, he was adjudicated as mentally defective: "Virginia Special Justice Paul Barnett certified in an order that Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness,"

So they should have reported that certification to NICS and he was a prohibited person.
 
2012-12-25 11:05:46 AM

Mrtraveler01: muck4doo: Wow. Looking at the threads from the last few days, it sure looks like the left has their "rights stripping boner" in full raping hard on.

/Yes. Let's let the government protect us.

Not as stupid as the "lets arm everyone" idiocy t hat the gun nuts seem to want.

I agree that having a police officer in schools is a good start. But it shouldn't be the only solution.


Mrtraveler01 try not to be afraid of everything, try to go one day without being a compete coward
 
2012-12-25 02:11:25 PM
 
2012-12-25 02:25:49 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: If he's paying the tuition, he's paying for the armed guards.
The difference with LaPierre's proposal is that he's saying we need to have armed guards in every school, but is offering no solution to pay for said guards -- one newspaper estimates the cost for one guard per building in Pennsylvania to be up to $140,000,000 annually. Even if the guards were all volunteers who's paying for background checks, liability insurance, training, etc.?

I am *not* opposed to the concept of increased school security. I'd even pay higher property taxes to improve that security. But, here in PA there's a law that requires every school property tax hike above the rate of inflation to be approved via voter referendum. To date there have been 13 such votes, and to date exactly one has passed -- plus, with federal money running out and state-level budget cuts something like 20,000 teachers/support staff have already been fired.


They could do it easily for nearly no cost.

1. Pass a law to require that each state must issue a license to carry if the person can legally possess a firearm and passed a background check. Person getting permit pays the costs, just like now.
2. Repeal gun free school zones to allow people with a license to carry to be on the grounds.
3. Parents volunteer 1 day a month to hang around the school, no cost to the school

Bonus for the anti-gun folks, us pro gun folks will be the first target of the bad guys. To protect my kids, I don't mind having a target painted on me.
 
2012-12-25 02:40:02 PM
Glaring liberal hypocrisy from the light-loafered lib David Gregory. I am equally unsurprised and unimpressed.
 
2012-12-25 04:52:02 PM

tonguedepressor: snocone: So, the hypocracy and duplicity is alive and well in the Media.
This is my suprised face.

People, NONE of these talking heads really believe their own derp. They will Nanny you right into the pens and happily take their blood money from the New Orderlies.

/we can deport a few, start w/ Piers Morgan.

So none of these guys have their own opinions on the topics that make up their livelihood and lifelong career pursuit?

Gotcha.


You understand perfectly.
They say what they are paid to say. By those who pay to put them on the air.
Let me count the bodies of those who improvised,,,

And do show me Morgan's gun that "shoots 40 bullets a second".
 
2012-12-26 05:08:31 AM

mwfark: Glaring liberal hypocrisy from the light-loafered lib David Gregory. I am equally unsurprised and unimpressed.


"Light-loafered?"
 
2012-12-26 05:44:53 PM

thamike: mwfark: Glaring liberal hypocrisy from the light-loafered lib David Gregory. I am equally unsurprised and unimpressed.

"Light-loafered?"


You expect the trolls and shills to speak intelligently?
 
2012-12-26 07:04:44 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: thamike: mwfark: Glaring liberal hypocrisy from the light-loafered lib David Gregory. I am equally unsurprised and unimpressed.

"Light-loafered?"

You expect the trolls and shills to speak intelligently?


Shtrolling?
 
Displayed 521 of 521 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report