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  
•       •       •

9313 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 521 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report