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 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.
 
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