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  
•       •       •

9305 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 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.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report