Do you have adblock enabled?
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 105
    More: Dumbass, NBC, mock trial, Sidwell Friends, payrolls, security  
•       •       •

9329 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 11:07 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-24 07:59:28 AM  
9 votes:
Some children are more important than others, submitter. It's a fact of life.
2012-12-24 07:17:22 AM  
9 votes:
Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.
2012-12-24 08:34:29 AM  
8 votes:
I'm.... outraged?

Wait, no I'm not. Just because one school where lots of children who might be potential targets attend needs guards, that doesn't mean all schools need guards. Why are republicans constantly so pouty and outraged? Does it make them happy?
2012-12-24 08:38:34 AM  
7 votes:
Did you guys know that the President said he doesn't think all Americans should have Secret Service protection, even though he himself has Secret Service protection??? What a hypocrite! It's like he thinks some lives are more valuable than others!
2012-12-24 08:32:32 AM  
7 votes:

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


And he clearly doesn't object strongly enough to not send his kids there.
2012-12-24 08:31:12 AM  
7 votes:

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


Yet he probably chose the school based on it's policies. Go figure.
2012-12-24 08:38:09 AM  
6 votes:

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

TFA mentions that this is not counting the SS detail.


Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security. That, plus "security" doesn't necessarily mean against rampage shooters. If you have security at a Foot Locker they're there to stop thieves, not prepared to take down a guy with a high powered rifle.
2012-12-24 08:21:08 AM  
5 votes:
This is a lot like Al Gore lecturing us all on how we are killing the planet with everything we do in our lives and yet its ok for him to pollute the skies as he rides around on a jet telling lies everywhere.
2012-12-24 08:11:30 AM  
5 votes:
Only children of the elite deserve schools with gun-carrying protectors.
2012-12-24 09:56:27 AM  
4 votes:
If he's paying the tuition, he's paying for the armed guards.
The difference with LaPierre's proposal is that he's saying we need to have armed guards in every school, but is offering no solution to pay for said guards -- one newspaper estimates the cost for one guard per building in Pennsylvania to be up to $140,000,000 annually. Even if the guards were all volunteers who's paying for background checks, liability insurance, training, etc.?

I am *not* opposed to the concept of increased school security. I'd even pay higher property taxes to improve that security. But, here in PA there's a law that requires every school property tax hike above the rate of inflation to be approved via voter referendum. To date there have been 13 such votes, and to date exactly one has passed -- plus, with federal money running out and state-level budget cuts something like 20,000 teachers/support staff have already been fired.
2012-12-24 08:49:09 AM  
4 votes:

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

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

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

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


Of course it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to waste time with anything like one or two police officers assigned detail or anything like that. Look, banks need armed guards. Malls need armed guards. Pro sports events need armed guards. These are things we value. It's all about priorities.
2012-12-24 08:18:42 AM  
4 votes:

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


TFA mentions that this is not counting the SS detail.
2012-12-24 07:56:20 AM  
4 votes:
Security guards at the school where Obama's kids attend?

This is an outrage!
2012-12-24 05:26:57 PM  
3 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-12-24 02:15:08 PM  
3 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-12-24 11:36:59 AM  
3 votes:
oblig

www.sarasota.k12.fl.us
2012-12-24 08:59:00 AM  
3 votes:
Let's just say I think that college football is bad and is something that needs to be scaled back in a major way. Even if I held those beliefs, it would not be some crazy thing to send my kids to Stanford.
2012-12-24 08:58:19 AM  
3 votes:

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

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


No, I'm saying that you can argue for armed guards in schools all you want to, but "this school has armed guards, therefore all schools need armed guards" is not a logical argument. Find a better one.
2012-12-24 08:55:32 AM  
3 votes:
It's safe to say the school where Gregory sends his kids is a high-security school. It's just odd he'd want it for his kids, but wouldn't be more open to it for others.

It's also entirely possible that he feels the same way about the armed guards at this school, but whatever feelings he has are outweighed by the educational benefits provided there.
2012-12-24 08:54:09 AM  
3 votes:

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


Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.
2012-12-24 12:44:58 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:19:20 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:13:48 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:08:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:47:18 AM  
2 votes:
I bet the school also spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on top-notch teachers that, beyond subject matter, are also able to understand children and provide a better learning environment. They probably have administrators that concern themselves with the school environment and searching out possible issues and resolving them instead of shuffling the kid on to a bus at 2:30 without giving him a second thought.

Let's do stuff like that at public schools before thinking a 60k rent-a-cop at every door will solve everything
2012-12-24 11:47:07 AM  
2 votes:
April 16, 2000

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

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

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

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

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

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323
2012-12-24 11:12:35 AM  
2 votes:
According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

So we don't know if the security are actually armed or not, but we'll just ignore that for the purposes of our article. That's some good investigative reporting there, Lou.
2012-12-24 10:54:34 AM  
2 votes:

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


Their only consistency is to support the GOP's position.  Which is why people who had never suggested armed guards before are suddenly pretending it is the only solution to this problem.  It's a good way to find the talking point shills, since they're the only ones who are defending this idea that none of them ever had.
2012-12-24 09:23:25 AM  
2 votes:
NRA- All pets require litterboxes!

David Gregory- no, not all pets need litterboxes.

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

Rational people- *facepalm*
2012-12-24 08:57:21 AM  
2 votes:

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

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


Important? No. At risk? Yes. But I think you know that. Or do you also think that you need a stop light and crosswalk at every intersection?
2012-12-24 08:55:51 AM  
2 votes:

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


I can only assume that you regularly rail on people for wanting to have things that you afford yourself.
2012-12-24 08:54:28 AM  
2 votes:

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

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


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

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

Also remember, Columbine had an armed guard, Virginia Tech subcontracted out with the  police department and Fort Hood was a military base,  for pity's sake. The presence of armed personnel is obviously not a deterrent at all. Something does need to be done, but armed guards at every school, especially of the citizen patrol or teacher variety, is not the answer. What the answer  is, I am not entirely sure. I'll get back to you when I figure it out.
2012-12-24 08:41:32 AM  
2 votes:

kxs401: I'm.... outraged?

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


Hey, I'm with you. Some kids need security. Why should the hoi polloi get that sort of service?Security costs money, and those resources need to be spared only on a certain class of people.
2012-12-24 08:22:11 AM  
2 votes:
Only peasants send their children to schools where they can be slaughtered.
2012-12-24 08:16:52 AM  
2 votes:
David Gregory probably does not set school policy.
2012-12-24 07:26:39 AM  
2 votes:

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


The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.
2012-12-24 04:58:08 PM  
1 vote:
Internet Liberals 10-12 years ago:
" He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Internet Liberals today:
"Waaaaaaah school shooters are everywhere! Please start restricting our gun ownership rights so that we can be more secure"
2012-12-24 04:43:34 PM  
1 vote:
papundits.files.wordpress.com
2012-12-24 04:13:55 PM  
1 vote:
www.lostrepublic.us
2012-12-24 03:55:37 PM  
1 vote:

kronicfeld: David Gregory probably does not set school policy.


he is a semi closeted republican and probably choose the school based on the guards.

how the hell he ever got to host meet the press is beyond me. he is horrible at it.
2012-12-24 03:43:32 PM  
1 vote:
The NRA: by their own admission, selling you the disease, *and* the cure.
KIA
2012-12-24 03:23:33 PM  
1 vote:

Keizer_Ghidorah: There will be people scared to death of the government for whatever reason they can think of.


Yes, because governments have never done evil.

Even the US Government.

Ever.

Therefore fear of government is irrational. It is always there to help solve a problem or commiserate in a hard time. It's like a best friend composed of faceless bureaucrats thousands of miles away whose sole interest is to make your personal life better. After all, if your personal life was already fantastic, you wouldn't need a best friend, would you?

/ sarcasm off. Off, I say!
2012-12-24 03:04:41 PM  
1 vote:
Only liberals and socialists should have their children protected. Any other ideology indoctrinating a child should place that child at risk. We need re-education camps and people's courts. Guns should only be allowed in the military, and special security details for liberals and socialists only. Ban everything else. Raise all taxes to the levels of church tithing. Ban all organized religions. Ban all thought that doesn't comply to the goals of the state. Kill those who disagree.

/amidoinitright?
2012-12-24 02:26:46 PM  
1 vote:
assets.diylol.com
2012-12-24 02:21:21 PM  
1 vote:
Senator Diane Feinstein is a strong advocate of gun control---for the commoners.

However she carries a concealed pistol for her own protection.

I do not see too many aristocrats willing to put themserlves in the same danger the common people are expected to endure.

Double standard as usual?
2012-12-24 02:08:05 PM  
1 vote:
Lets move the TSA from airports to Schools
2012-12-24 02:08:04 PM  
1 vote:
www.theblaze.com

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.
2012-12-24 01:46:28 PM  
1 vote:

david_gaithersburg: While we're pissing on the Bill of Rights lets piss on all of it! Next up, free speech must be regulated. Want to attend a church? Were is your mental health evaluation form? etc.


what the fark is wrong with you?
Because maybe at some point you won't be able to purchase any given killing machine of your choice your rights are being pissed upon? Get a farking grip.
When they stop sales of all guns and ammo and ALSO go house to house taking away guns then you can complain.
When they refuse to solve the problem of guns in schools with more guns in schools; Good.
2012-12-24 01:40:04 PM  
1 vote:

Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.


This. When I went to High School from '92 to '96, we had a School Resource Officer.

He was a sworn Sheriff's Deputy. He carried a gun.

He directed traffic in the morning and after school. He was there in case drugs were found or if there was a serious fight, but most of the time he was more a social worker than anything else, there to make sure kids knew where their families could get help or access to programs.

That was around 20 years ago.

BTW, yeah before anybody says it didn't help at Columbine since they had an armed SRO, remember that until that point SRO's were trained to not fire first and not engage immediately, that armed people would take hostages and wait for the demands. That went out the window after Columbine. . .much like "just go along with the hijackers and you'll be OK" went out the window after 9/11.
2012-12-24 01:39:05 PM  
1 vote:
Gun Control is only to keep conservative whites from having guns. Inner city blacks and libs with money can always have guns
2012-12-24 01:38:37 PM  
1 vote:
While we're pissing on the Bill of Rights lets piss on all of it! Next up, free speech must be regulated. Want to attend a church? Were is your mental health evaluation form? etc.
2012-12-24 01:04:07 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:42:47 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:39:18 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:36:20 PM  
1 vote:
img27.imageshack.us
2012-12-24 12:34:21 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:32:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:31:24 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:29:11 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:27:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:23:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:20:31 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:20:25 PM  
1 vote:

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


www.city-data.com
2012-12-24 12:19:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:12:06 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:09:19 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:07:57 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:05:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:01:39 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:54:39 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


But they pay lip service to wanting to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and isn't that what really matters?
2012-12-24 11:54:25 AM  
1 vote:
You lost me at NBC news. Leftist rag.

/Independent
2012-12-24 11:54:00 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


hooooo not here buddy. The gun-totin' Jesus-lovin' Obama is a sekrit moosalem I really should be on prescription anti-psychotics South ate. that. shiat. up.
2012-12-24 11:47:37 AM  
1 vote:

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


Not really. In a limited budget situation where you can spend $100 on a gun or a pile of books, I'm picking the books if it's a school
2012-12-24 11:47:17 AM  
1 vote:
"According to a scan of the school's online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed."

What...the....fark. The master journalists at the Standard can't even bother to find out whether the CRUX of their farkING ARTICLE is valid or not? I mean, I know it's a rag but this right here...this is the real thing. "We're right because we presume, without doing any investigating at all..."
2012-12-24 11:46:38 AM  
1 vote:

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

True... I can name at least one.

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


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

/It seems to hint that we're worried about common neighborhood violence coming into the school from outside.
//Maybe more than what's going on inside.
2012-12-24 11:46:38 AM  
1 vote:

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


Man, remember when the Democrats were dead-set against the TSA, and voted against renewing the Patriot Act, and then when Obama became President and the Democrats took over the House and Senate, they couldn't stop talking about how they were going to get rid of the TSA?  Good times, man.  Good times.
2012-12-24 11:41:05 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

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

Except, of course, "buy more guns".  Which was exactly LaPierre's intention with his crazy talk.
2012-12-24 11:40:06 AM  
1 vote:
So, conservatives are going to pour a lot of funding into public schools so they're more like Sidwell Friends?

img689.imageshack.us
2012-12-24 11:39:17 AM  
1 vote:

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


This, ironically, may be a response to reality. What chance is there that more than one solution to any problem will be embraced by governments, the media, AND the public? It's a competition for attention, influence and power. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.
2012-12-24 11:34:22 AM  
1 vote:
Don't see it often mentioned how things worked out for the armed guard at the 2005http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22224114/red-lake-grads -off e r-support-newtown-conn?source=pkg Red Lake School Shooting.
2012-12-24 11:33:17 AM  
1 vote:
Back on topic...

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

Even Wellesley High School in Massachusetts has an armed security guard.
2012-12-24 11:29:29 AM  
1 vote:

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

Right?

Right?


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

Although if you're lucky, this thread has a couple of douches that will probably go there just to get bites.
2012-12-24 11:28:31 AM  
1 vote:
What does the fact that his kids go to a school that has armed security have to do with the argument he was making? Was he arguing against armed security at schools? No he wasn't. The point he was making is that having an armed security guard at the school might not have stopped this from happening, like it didn't stop other mass shootings.This is something the the NRA is saying would have stopped it and is arguing that should be in place over trying to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people.

Anybody trying to make a big deal over where he sends his kids to school and trying to use it to somehow discredit his point is an idiot.
2012-12-24 11:27:20 AM  
1 vote:

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

GTFO with that sh*t.


I think they have been worried for years about the mentally ill, Progressives, and Democrats, but I'm repeating myself.
2012-12-24 11:25:41 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

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

Don't claim to the "rational" faction of American politics. That imaginary crown was sacrificed decades ago.
2012-12-24 11:22:46 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


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

With that out of the way, if I have a choice between putting an armed guard at my child's school or investing in better mental health care for the community, I'm going for the health care. It may be a good idea to arm the principal, but that should also be a decision left to the local school district. And I stress the word may.
2012-12-24 11:20:41 AM  
1 vote:
If you're advocating armed security in schools, but not at least a security officer in every CLASSROOM, you're a disingenuous piece of shiat. Seriously, one officer in a school? People will just shoot up the 2nd floor instead of the 1st.
2012-12-24 11:18:22 AM  
1 vote:
Tax money set aside for installing a panic button alongside fire alarms in every school, regulated by similar laws as the fire alarms. Hit one button for the fire alarm. Hit the one right next to it for the panic button.

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

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

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

So, yeah. Panic buttons in schools. Cheaper than armed guards.
2012-12-24 11:15:27 AM  
1 vote:
The same David Gregory that possessed a 30 round magazine on television in Washington D.C. and hasn't been charged with D.C.'s strict magazine capacity limit law yet?

/go figure
//obviously the entire newsroom was at risk while it was there
2012-12-24 10:26:53 AM  
1 vote:
Sooooo.... by this logic, there should be a draft - after all, the Iraq war was a bad thing because those who advocated going to war did not in fact send their own children.  Right?
2012-12-24 10:16:20 AM  
1 vote:
I'm sure all you conservatives will support increased taxes to provide armed security for all public schools.

Right?

Right?
2012-12-24 10:13:41 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


I know it must be frustrating when people whom you disagree with seem not to have opinions that match your pre-conceived notions of what their opinions should be based on your concept of a particular ideology, but it must be doubly frustrating when you have missed the point entirely.
2012-12-24 10:09:00 AM  
1 vote:
Those guards are to keep out poor children and kids whose parents don't have the right connections, big difference
2012-12-24 09:59:04 AM  
1 vote:
Oh, it's a private school?  Oh, it' the same school that the President's kids go to, and presumably has more security because of that?  Yawn.

That's right folks.  You can't pay for something with your own money unless you also think everybody should have that and pay for it with taxpayer money.  Interesting seeing the right wing making that argument this time though.
2012-12-24 09:47:15 AM  
1 vote:
It's like the World Series of Intentional Obtuseness in this thread.
2012-12-24 09:21:08 AM  
1 vote:

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


It's called "choice". Maybe you've heard that word used in other discussions regarding children.
2012-12-24 09:19:26 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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


And you are arguing that security for children should be a luxury item. Strange days indeed.
2012-12-24 09:15:47 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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


Amazing to see you and DIA now so supportive of equal, safe, high quality public education.  I would think you'd be in favor of choice.  Choice for higher quality.  Choice for better security.  You guys sound like Bolsheviks today.  Suddenly so concerned about the common people.
2012-12-24 09:11:40 AM  
1 vote:
If all the kids and teachers were packing heat those guards wouldn't be needed. Duh.... problem solved. Can't you all see that?
2012-12-24 09:05:41 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


Oh, absolutely. Security is a nice perk. The much higher quality of education and not having to deal with the poors are the main draw.
2012-12-24 09:04:47 AM  
1 vote:

nmrsnr: FTFY


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


FTFM...AY
2012-12-24 09:01:19 AM  
1 vote:

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


Wait, there might be other reasons to send a kid to a school other than their armed security presence? Since when?
2012-12-24 08:58:36 AM  
1 vote:

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

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


They pay for that security.  You're welcome to as well if that's your choice.
2012-12-24 08:54:02 AM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

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


Argue that schools need armed guards if you'd like, but that's not the point this headline is trying to make. "Conservatives" are trying to present this situation as some sort of "HA! Gotcha!" Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't.
2012-12-24 08:49:35 AM  
1 vote:

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


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

Higher taxes for education and a massive expansion of government.   EnviroDude, I don't think I even know you anymore.
 
Displayed 105 of 105 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report