December 20, 2012

"Gallup: More Americans Favor School Officials Having Guns Than Weapon Ban."

"See, states like Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, which are looking at arming teachers, are just in touch with America. Why is Barack Obama so out of touch with America?"

317 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 317 of 317
John DeTombe said...

Kirk Parker said...
Coketown,

"John DeTombe said... It is illegal in the United States to own guns that fire more than 1 bullet per trigger pull. Those are called machine guns and have been banned since 1934."

See what I mean? Every single bloody discussion thread features someone -- often one of the good guys, yet -- trotting out this same canard!

I guess I should just give up. But for the record: No it's not illegal, and no they aren't banned. (They are, admittedly, highly regulated but even fairly anti-gun states like, oh, say, Connecticut don't outright ban them.)


You are of course correct, and I am aware. The costs, regulations, etc pretty much amount to a de facto ban though.

I glossed over this point because I was dealing with Inga, who doesn't even understand what Semi-Auto means. I was trying not keep things simple.

EMD said...

Tactically, if magazine size is really no big deal, why not be willing to compromise on that in order to keep the right to own guns secure?

It's more about conceding the power to define your own defense by the very authority you may one day have to defend yourself against.


mark said...

@Inga

You had made a joking comment about groups of more then 10 attackers on a home.

My answer was about that your, admittedly silly, example isn't the typical reason for why gun owners like having magazines that hold lots of rounds. We like magazines that hold lots of rounds because it suits the typical thing we do with guns. Shoot them. A lot.

They are enjoyable to own and use.

So are lots of the things people do. Cars, pools, etc. Many of which are dangerous as well. Example: more people are killed by vehicles then guns.

And besides making you feel good in "doing something", what will your ban actually do? The reality is that it will be less then worthless towards what you claim to be trying to accomplish: save lives.

It would be the same a limiting size of vehicles in the attempt to save lives in car accidents. Because "bigger" = "deadlier" right?

garage mahal said...

It's more about conceding the power to define your own defense by the very authority you may one day have to defend yourself against.

Except they have nuclear weapons and drones. It's pure fantasy to think ordinary citizens can battle our military.

mark said...

@Freder

mark said: "Make sure you reload those magazines all by yourself. Filling the magazine"

Freder said: "This makes no sense at all. Filling three ten round magazines will take as long as one thirty round magazine."

Please go do this and get back to me. I've shot enough rounds to know that filling and shooting 3 vs 1 takes longer and gives me less time to plink.

Every heard of scale efficiency?

Jay said...

Inga has never owned a firearm.

Inga has never fired a weapon of any caliber.

However, Inga does not like "high capacity clips" and wants to do away with them.

Makes like a ton of sense.

The tragic part in all of this is we have people in Congress such as Carolyn McCarthy, who know just as little or less than Inga does trying to make national gun policies.

Finally, Inga, who lives in a Lilly white good liberal neighborhood where only those yokel hunters and scary black gang bangers have guns, lacks the self-awareness to realize that her Lilly white existence not only an exception in human history, it is an exception in America.

Chip S. said...

It's more about conceding the power to define your own defense by the very authority you may one day have to defend yourself against.

If you're barricaded in your home against the authorities, it shouldn't be much of a problem to swap out 10-round magazines from your stash. It seems like more of an inconvenience for a lone killer who might be taken down w/ a couple of shots from a single defender while changing magazines.

If you're actually making a "slippery slope" argument, then I have nothing to add to what I said to Col. Angus.

EMD said...

Except they have nuclear weapons and drones. It's pure fantasy to think ordinary citizens can battle our military.

You assume the military will all be on one side.

Also, you also assume that they would be willing to basically detonate nuclear weapons on their own turf.

Finally, did you not see "Red Dawn" (Not the crap remake, but the Swayze-crazy original?) !!!!

Inga said...

And why do they want to fight our military??

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...
It would be nice if, when stating "facts" like this, you provided statistics (and a link) to back up this assertion.



Um,
rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report.

You fucking retard.

Jay said...

By the way, where did this idiotic assertion that cops don't carry magazines with greater than 10 bullets come from?

John DeTombe said...

Inga said...
And why do they want to fight our military??


Because people like you like to 'reeducate' those you disagree with and use the military to do the work for you.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
purplepenquin said...

You have not acknowledged the fact that you were wrong through ignorance, or outright lied when you stated unequivocably that I had not taken the positon in favor of arming school personnel

Looks to me like you were asking a question rather than making a clear statement, but I see no need to quibble over that...what I really want to know is if you think our hostess, who made the opening post, prefers for children to be unprotected. In fact, not just her...many others have yet to flat-out clearly express their support for allowing teachers to be armed.

*shrug*


And yes, I saw the comment where you acknowledge my actual position rather than the one you made up for me, but I didn't see an apology for the outrageous accusation you leveled against me. But, as so many "different" people have pointed out I'm probably just an idiot who doesn't know how to read, and therefore I'm sure you said "sorry" in there somewhere...I musta just missed it, eh?

mark said...

Inga said...
And why do they want to fight our military??

See Penn and Teller on the 2nd Amendment. It's on youtube.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
X said...

every common sense regulation the left ever wants, they want backed with guns.

Inga said...

So, the second civil war going to be won by those who are better armed. I see.

EMD said...

And why do they want to fight our military??

You could never conceive of this? Ever?

Did you cheer the Khmer Rouge rolling into Phnom Penh?







John DeTombe said...

Inga said...
John? We do? Really?

You don't think that your assertion is a it outlandish?


Do you not know the history of leftists in the 20th century? Seriously?

Seriously, seriously?

Inga said...

EMD, no because we are Americans. I guess I'm a naive patriotic American, sorry.

garage mahal said...

Also, you also assume that they would be willing to basically detonate nuclear weapons on their own turf.

Probably not. But I'm sure they could raze your house down to rubble pretty quick if they wanted to.

purplepenquin said...

You are of course correct, and I am aware. The costs, regulations, etc pretty much amount to a de facto ban though

Same thing happens when talking about the drug war. Someone will complain about pot being banned, and someone else will chime in that it ain't really "banned" 'cause the Feds give pre-rolled joints to a small select group of people.

Nit pickers gonna nit&pick...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's pure fantasy to think ordinary citizens can battle our military

Which is why the US easily won the wars in 'nam and 'stan. :D

EMD said...

Except they have nuclear weapons and drones. It's pure fantasy to think ordinary citizens can battle our military.

And finally, on this subject, the most likely force you would initially have to fight if this were to happen would be your own local police force.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Purple Penguin,

Please do not besmirch a fantastic movie like Tombstone by draping yourself in it's quotes for your idiotic rantings.

You sir, are no Doc Holiday.

And you messed up the quote anyways, it's "I'm your huckleberry."

Fucktard.

Matt said...

Idiot, you initiated the confusion when you wrote this:

purplepenquin said...

"'First, I have not seen anyone say that ALL teachers should be armed, idiots.'

"I don't see the word 'all' in my post either.

"Oh, sorry. Let me say this in your native language so there is no confusion: I don't see the word 'all' in my post either, idiot."

-------

You referenced my first statement which was for Inga and ignored the second which addressed your statement. The structure of my comment contributed to the confusion but you willingly latched on the non-germane portion and completely disregarded the point related to you.

You were not interested in clarifying the confusion. You wanted to obfuscate to distract from your original, dopey statement. So, you do not get an apology. You get accurately described as a dishonest idiot. Dishonest for ignoring the relevant part of post and an idiot for your originally, stupid etch-a-sketch comment.

Idiot.

EMD said...

Probably not. But I'm sure they could raze your house down to rubble pretty quick if they wanted to

We're doing a kick-ass job of projecting military might in Afghanistan, wouldn't you agree?

Aridog said...

garage mahal said...

Aridog ... I don't know. The Tea Party packs at their rallies, and you never hear about Tea Partiers getting clubbed or pepper sprayed.

And how many "tea partiers" are confronting police with hostile actions?

You say it like all TP's "pack" which I seriously doubt is the case. Yet you omit the fact that the liberal thugs in Michigan were "packing" knives which they brandished...and cut down a tent with to boot.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
. But I'm sure they could raze your house down to rubble pretty quick if they wanted to.


You never served in the military you pansy fat fuck.

You can shut up now.

Jay said...

But I'm sure they could raze your house down to rubble pretty quick if they wanted to

Says the same idiot who was screeching about "mission accomplished" during OIF.

Your idiocy knows no limits.

EMD said...

EMD, no because we are Americans. I guess I'm a naive patriotic American, sorry.

I don't foresee it happening Inga ... not in our lifetimes.

But the mere principle of the people's right of defense against tyranny is too valuable to tear asunder.




mark said...

@Inga ...

Just so you know. ALL laws are backed by threat of death by government. ALL.

Don't want to pay your taxes? Get a fine. Don't pay the fine? Go to jail. Don't want to go to jail ...

Umm ...

I guess we have to "force" you to jail. Where "force" mean "kill you" if you don't go.

Do you think Clinton's response in Waco was appropriate? Ruby Ridge? The police in LA or New Orleans or Chicago or "name that corrupt police department"?

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms is a permanent right. Not just one for when we have good leaders with good police officers with good military leaders all of whom love us with unabiding and self sacrificing love for the people.

It is one reserved for that time when they kick down your door because you are black, a Jew, a women who wants an education, a women who wants to not wear a veil, or just a person that isn't liked.

Look at history and the world as it is today. Which is more common amongst man?

garage mahal said...

EMD
To be clear, I abhor the police state actions like no knock raids and the like that kill people and pets over basically nothing. I wonder if anyone has gave them a face full before busting into their homes? How the hell does the homeowner know who they are in the middle of the night? Somehow I don't think castle doctrine laws would protect you if you killed some feds breaking into your home.

EMD said...

I wish people were not so insulated about the immense wealth, opportunity, and safety this country affords them.

We are fortunate to have forebears who deliberately designed our country as such.



Matt said...

Everyone stop until I get back.

I have toys to drop off for Toys for Tots and today is the last day. And, yes, I bring it up to brag. It is not something I generally talk about even with my family but I was called a troll so I want to brag about being nice.

I'm the nice troll under the bridge with lots of presents for kids! Like a Tim Burton kind of Santa Clause!!

EMD said...

EMD
To be clear, I abhor the police state actions like no knock raids and the like that kill people and pets over basically nothing. I wonder if anyone has gave them a face full before busting into their homes? How the hell does the homeowner know who they are in the middle of the night? Somehow I don't think castle doctrine laws would protect you if you killed some feds breaking into your home.


Good. We agree.

I question the constitutionality of no-knock raids.

John DeTombe said...

purplepenquin said...
You have not acknowledged the fact that you were wrong through ignorance, or outright lied when you stated unequivocably that I had not taken the positon in favor of arming school personnel

Looks to me like you were asking a question rather than making a clear statement, but I see no need to quibble over that...what I really want to know is if you think our hostess, who made the opening post, prefers for children to be unprotected. In fact, not just her...many others have yet to flat-out clearly express their support for allowing teachers to be armed.

*shrug*


And yes, I saw the comment where you acknowledge my actual position rather than the one you made up for me, but I didn't see an apology for the outrageous accusation you leveled against me. But, as so many "different" people have pointed out I'm probably just an idiot who doesn't know how to read, and therefore I'm sure you said "sorry" in there somewhere...I musta just missed it, eh?


You are arguing in bad faith. I have made no outlandish accusations against you, and everything I have stated I have backed up by citing your own words. Even when you acknowledge the point I advocated several hours ago, I gave you your due. I will never apologize for speaking the truth.

You are once again either lacking in reading comprehension, or outright lying again by characterizing my positions as questions. Here I will quote for you again.

"Would arming self selected volunteers, provide them with training, and publicize that fact be effective?

I for one think it would be."
12/20/12 9:27 AM


There is no wiggle room for you here. This is a question I posed to the commenters here, and then answered for myself in the affirmative.

You are a bad faith liar to claim that this is anything but advocating this position. And that is just from this one comment. Do you really need to have your lack of intellectual honesty laid naked for all to see? I challenge you to quote my own comments back to me that show me saying school personnel should not be armed, or to where I am unsure that they should be armed, or to where I am ambivalent about them being armed.

You will be unable to do so while remaining honest. Everyone here already knows this, I'm only pointing this out now because it is neccessary to hold the line against intellectual dishonesty.

purplepenquin said...

You wanted to obfuscate to distract from your original, dopey statement

My original statement was that there was a lot of folks on this blog who were putting down teachers during the protests/recalls. If you wanna claim that nobody ever did such a thing, even after a link has been provided, then I guess you can beleive whatever you wanna beleive...but I ain't the one who is being "dopey" about it. What is really interesting is how you are planting your flag on this one while practically ignoring the actual issue being talked about.

It is obvious that your main intentions are to belittle others and call names, and you have no desire at all to engage in a good-faith discussion.

EMD said...

I'm the nice troll under the bridge with lots of presents for kids! Like a Tim Burton kind of Santa Clause!!

Who's getting the severed head?

machine said...

Sooooo Amurica is just like a third world country?

Arm the Children! We must have fun!

garage mahal said...

You never served in the military

True, and I'm sure you haven't either.

But I invite you to come onto my lawn: you can dress like a terrorist, and I'll pretend I'm in the military. It'll be fun!

EMD said...

But I invite you to come onto my lawn: you can dress like a terrorist, and I'll pretend I'm in the military. It'll be fun!

This did make me laugh.

Matt said...

"My original statement was that there was a lot of folks on this blog who were putting down teachers during the protests/recalls."

Your original statement was:

"Just a few months ago most of ya'll were saying that teachers are nothing but thugs and leeches who are too dumb to do their job, but now ya wanna give 'em assault weapons while at work?"

"Nothing but" = all. And you know it.

Now, everyone, seriously shut up. I have to go.

EMD said...

Sooooo Amurica is just like a third world country?


Most third-world countries don't have 2nd amendments, let alone 19, nor a process by which the people can amend anything the State says or does.

You're incredibly lucky and privileged. Enjoy it.

Inga said...

Fun times at the OK Corrall! Yahoooo!

EMD said...

Fun times at the OK Corrall! Yahoooo!

Ha ha ha yes. So many gunfights all over town!

Or mainly in depressed urban areas afflicted by the drug trade.

You want to significantly reduce gun violence in the United States?

Legalize the sale of narcotics.

John DeTombe said...

John DeTombe said...
purplepenguin said...

I beleive that allowing workers (which includes teachers) to carry while on the job would have a huge effect in protecting against mass shootings

It is good to see this, as it is the logical position.

Thank you for clarifying.

12/20/12 11:59 AM


Note the time this comment was made:

purplepenquin said...
You are either bad at reading, or an outright liar

That is EXACTLY what I thought when you claimed I prefer to allow children to be undefended. I flat-out said that I wasn't in favor of banning such magazines, but you either didn't read that or (like Matt) you are choosing to lie about what I said.

*shrug*

Either way, I've been clear enough now...haven't I? Or are you still gonna insist that I prefer for murderers to kill school children unhindered?

12/20/12 12:11 PM


And note the time that this comment was made.

Read comprehension? Bad faith? Outright Lying?

purplepenquin said...

And yes, I saw the comment where you acknowledge my actual position rather than the one you made up for me

12/20/12 12:39 PM


I will go with outright lying. I acknowledged your support for arming teachers, then you denounced me for not acknowledging the support for arming teachers.

Then you claimed that you had read the comment. If you had read the comment, your denounciation can only be born of a deliberate lie.

n.n said...

They don't necessarily have to be armed, but the minority interest (e.g. criminal) cannot know their condition beforehand. However, if the criminal does choose to act despite the elevated risk and likely higher opportunity cost, then it would be advisable for the people to be capable of mounting a proper response and control further involuntary exploitation or loss of life.

EMD said...

Inga is also ignorant of the fact that the OK Corral was a confrontation between police and criminals that left three dead, not "fun" with law-abiding citizens.

ThomasD said...

Bear Spray.

No, not the little wimpy can that will fit inside of a purse or on a key chain. I'm talking about something the size of a small fire extinguisher. One that can launch a 20+ foot stream of 20% capsaicin solution. Something that will not just incapacitate a person, but can also be used as an area denial weapon.

Anb that's just one example, there are multiple other items that could be placed in schools, or other soft targets that are less than lethal but at least would give the minimally trained something to do other than just using their bodies as bullet catchers.

purplepenquin said...

I guess I'm a naive patriotic American, sorry

I was taught in history that our country was founded by fighting against the current gov't. Should our Founding Fathers be considered "unpatriotic"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have made no outlandish accusations against you, and everything I have stated I have backed up by citing your own words

Utter bullshit!! The accusation you made (that I prefer to see children be unprotected so that murderers can more easily kill 'em) was not only outlandish and extremely insulting, there was nothing I said that would even imply such a thing. Perhaps those type of accusations is just casual chit-chat in your social circle, but I found it to be extremely insulting and very dishonest on your part.

That aside, if you wanna claim that you've been saying "Arm the teachers" from the very beginning of this convo, then I'll say I was wrong to not notice that one lil' statement of yours. My apologies.

I challenge you to quote my own comments back to me that show me saying school personnel should not be armed

You couldn't find any such statement from me that said that, but you automatically assumed that I want to see kids be killed. Yet you're insulted that I would suggest such a thing. Looks like ya got a double standard, eh?

Whatever. Actually, I pretty sure I understand where you're coming from. Since I disagreed with ya about one lil' thing (if magazine-size has any relation to how many targets can be fired at) I am forever in your eyes just a lying liar that only lies.

I don't understand most of the rules&policies on this blog, but that one is crystal-clear.

EMD said...

And if Inga wants to go to Tombstone, AZ to see the OK Corral, I would advise against her stopping her car at any point along Interstate 10 or State Route 80 between Tuscon and Tombstone, since it's apparently a very dangerous place very close to the border with Mexico.

There are signs and everything.

Colonel Angus said...

Garage are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just not very intelligent?

If you want to play your violin for a bunch of violent anarchist 20 something thugs be my guest. I think illegally occupying a public park and turning it into a cesspool along with the outright public vandalism they wrought should have brought a harsher response than pepper spray. Then again, YYMV.

purplepenquin said...

I acknowledged your support for arming teachers, then you denounced me for not acknowledging the support for arming teachers.

I acknowledged your acknowledgement. What I was asking for is an actual apology for your outlandish and out-of-line accusation that was leveled against me personally.

Key word is "was", 'cause since you are still justifying your earlier statement it is obvious you beleive you did nothing at all wrong when you made your boorish assumption.

Whatever. Like I said before: What I really wanna know is Do you also think our hostess prefers for children to be unprotected so they can be more easily murdered?

After all, no where in that opening post does she actually express support for arming teachers, so that must mean she wants to see kids die....eh?

*rolls eyes*

garage mahal said...

If you want to play your violin for a bunch of violent anarchist 20 something thugs be my guest

Not playing a violin at all. Just saying some cops might think twice about fucking with them if they knew they were armed.

Nice to see how quickly conservatives can turn on a dime about oppressive governments though. Freedom for me but not for thee.

Colonel Angus said...

Chip in response to your ban on interested gun sales, that isn't going to have much impact IMO. As long as guns are available, bad people will get them and use them for bad reasons. Much in the same way revoking someone's driver license won't keep them from driving.

Realistically, banning all private gun ownership will logically lead to a lower rate of homicides by gun, although whether it leads to a decrease in homicides is another question. I suppose liberals will cheerfully trade the removal of personal self defense for reduced gun killings, I say reduced because even in England, they still gave gun deaths.

That's why I don't deal in compromise on the issue of banning guns, ammo or magazines because it accomplishes nothing. Either pass meaningful legislation or just accept the losses as the price of living in a 2nd Amendment society.

John DeTombe said...

That aside, if you wanna claim that you've been saying "Arm the teachers" from the very beginning of this convo, then I'll say I was wrong to not notice that one lil' statement of yours. My apologies.

You characterize this as a 'claim'. I assert that it is truth, and that I've done so in every comment regarding arming teachers that I have made. This is not just a 'one lil statement', it is the position that I have been advocating all day. Multiple times, over and over. You are lying again to claim that this is 'one lil statement'.

I did not ask for an apology from you, just an acknowledgement that you are wrong. This is a dishonest weazel out on your part and in no way takes responsibility for your false statements.

You couldn't find any such statement from me that said that, but you automatically assumed that I want to see kids be killed. Yet you're insulted that I would suggest such a thing. Looks like ya got a double standard, eh?

When you articulated a position, I acknowledge that you did, and thanked you for it. I made no statements about being insulted, that is in your imagination. There is no double standard on my part (project much?) as I acknowledged when you took a position. You on the other hand are still obfuscating on your demonstrable errors.

Whatever. Actually, I pretty sure I understand where you're coming from. Since I disagreed with ya about one lil' thing (if magazine-size has any relation to how many targets can be fired at) I am forever in your eyes just a lying liar that only lies.

And:

I acknowledged your acknowledgement. What I was asking for is an actual apology for your outlandish and out-of-line accusation that was leveled against me personally.

You flat out lied at first, as I have demonstrated that you are without a doubt a liar with my comment from 12/20/12 1:14 PM and it has nothing to do with comments on magazine size.

You can try to cover up the fact that you claimed that I did not thank you for making your position clear, and only later on after this was pointed out to you did you come clean.

EMD said...

Nice to see how quickly conservatives can turn on a dime about oppressive governments though. Freedom for me but not for thee.

OWS has the freedom to assemble and the freedom to vocalize their grievances. I would never impugn their right to do so.

They should however, expect to abide by municipal anti-littering codes and such.

purplepenquin said...

I have made no outlandish accusations against you

Re-reading this thread, this comment jumped out at me and I think I now understand the confusion.

Perhaps in your social circle it is considered just casual chit-chat to say that someone prefers for kids to be easily murdered, but most folks I know would find such a accusation to be highly insulting and outrageous...a strong case could even be made that those are "fighting words".

How would you respond to someone that says it is obvious you prefer having oral sex with 5 year old boys 'cause you have never said otherwise? And when you said "No, that ain't my stance" they merely reply with "Glad you feel that way, 'cause I do too" without even a hint of an apology for the ugly claim made earlier?

If that doesn't clear it up for ya then I reckon nuttin' will...

John DeTombe said...

Whatever. Like I said before: What I really wanna know is Do you also think our hostess prefers for children to be unprotected so they can be more easily murdered?

After all, no where in that opening post does she actually express support for arming teachers, so that must mean she wants to see kids die....eh?

*rolls eyes*


As soon as Ann jumps in and starts debating with my points that teachers should be armed (made in my very first comment), then I will ask her to explain her position as well. Just as I did with you when you opened your debate with me.

"Please explain why you prefer to keep children undefended so the next mass murderer also does not face any opposition to his murderous intentions."

Until she does so, she is not under my scrutiny.

Colonel Angus said...

Except they have nuclear weapons and drones. It's pure fantasy to think ordinary citizens can battle our military.

That's interesting because its liberals who keep claiming the US military can't defeat the Taliban.

I distinctly recall Harry Reid claiming we lost the war in Iraq.

Colonel Angus said...

Freder Frederson said... It would be nice if, when stating "facts" like this, you provided statistics (and a link) to back up this assertion.

Um, rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States —of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report.


As I said yesterday, media outlets claim 100 million firearms in the country. FBI stats for 2010 show 8775 people murdered by firearms so yes Freder, death by firearm is a statistical anomoly.

John DeTombe said...

Purplepenguin,

How do you respond when someone flat out lies about you? You've made claims against me that I have demonstrated to be complete fabrications.

Yet you just gloss that over and get all butt hurt because you were not clear in your position when you took the contrary to mine, from the start.

Once you made your position clear, this whole debate has been nothing but you crying that it was unfair of me to have to draw conclusions about your stance because you had not articulated what that stance was.

Meanwhile, you have done nothing but mischaracterize what I have said, you refuse to acknowledge when you were wrong, in a complete and honest manner, as I did when you stated you were favorable to arming teachers.

There was no ambiguity in my acknowledging your position, I did not weazel out of it. I did not assert that it was just a 'claim', or just 'one lil statement'.

You on the other hand flat out lied that I made any such acknowledgement, until I pointed it out to you again.

Sadly, when I asked you to explain your position (in my first comment to you), you could have just flatly stated what your position was and avoided all of this. Instead you did not do so for quite a while, the whole time trying to deflect away from the question.

In the meantime you have levied insults at me, called me a troll, made claims that I had not taken a postion on arming teachers, and then dissembled when that was pointed out to you as false.

You claim that my behavior has been egregious?

Look to yourself.

Colonel Angus said...

l the OK Corral was a confrontation between police and criminalsthatleft threedead, not "fun" with law-abiding citizens.

Referring to the Earps as the police is being a tad generous. Law enforcement in 1880s frontier America wasnt so cut and dry. Then again, the Wild West wasn't nearly as wild as the movies made it out to be.

Kirk Parker said...

Garage,

". I wonder if anyone has gave them a face full before busting into their homes? "

Well, if you knew anything about this subject you are pontificating on, you'd know about cases like Cory Maye's or Brian Eggleston's; but you don't, 'cause you don't.

"But I invite you to come onto my lawn: you can dress like a terrorist, and I'll pretend I'm in the military. It'll be fun! "

Sweet! I'll play the terrorist mortarman a block away. INCOMING!!!

Kirk Parker said...

John,

I certainly understand and appreciate the motivation, but may I politely disagree with the tactic? The cartoon-simplified version of reality that Inga propounds and inhabits is a big part of the problem. No nuance, no details, and above all never, never any unintended consequences! Just emote, declare, and the world conforms to your desires.

garage mahal said...

Well, if you knew anything about this subject you are pontificating on, you'd know about cases like Cory Maye's or Brian Eggleston's; but you don't, 'cause you don't.

Um, all I said was that I was against the government busting into people's homes and shooting them. I then *asked* if many people returned fire on them.

John DeTombe said...

Kirk Parker said...
John,

I certainly understand and appreciate the motivation, but may I politely disagree with the tactic? The cartoon-simplified version of reality that Inga propounds and inhabits is a big part of the problem. No nuance, no details, and above all never, never any unintended consequences! Just emote, declare, and the world conforms to your desires.



12/20/12 2:29 PM


Tilting at windmills am I?

Probably, but to sit back and allow it to pass without comment has gone on too long. The Inga's of the world will pave the way to hell with good intentions if we allow them. Maybe, just maybe, giving them some actual food for thought will make them realize that the world is not the cozy place they think it is, and learn to make judgements accordingly.

Maybe it won't work with her, but others reading who are not so cemented in their views? I can only hope.

Colonel Angus said...

Nice to see how quickly conservatives can turn on a dime about oppressive governments though. Freedom for me but not for thee.

Well garage when a group of anarchists thugs are destroying public property as well as private property then yes, I think the government should restore order.

I'll assume if I camped out in your front lawn, defacated on your driveway and smashed your windows, you don't want the cops hitting me with a nerf baton.

garage mahal said...

Well garage when a group of anarchists thugs are destroying public property as well as private property then yes, I think the government should restore order.

Just attach "thug" to people you don't like. That excuses everything. Done. Easy!

The reason the state doesn't beat the Tea Partiers? Because the Tea Party is doing the state's bidding for them. They're too stupid to figure it out though.

Darrell said...

Purplepenguin

See, John, that's your first mistake. If you look carefully it's "purple" p-e-n-Q-u-i-n. He/she/it's THAT clever!

Why even bother communicating with it?

Kirk Parker said...

John,

Oh, no. Sorry it wasn't clear. By "disagreeing with the tactic" I didn't mean you shouldn't engage with her, just that you shouldn't dumb-down the presentation for her.

Maybe she's unable or unwilling to understand the grown-up version, but most of the onlookers are.

Freder Frederson said...

rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report.

Actually, if you bother to look at the actual statistic, not just some article that cites it, you will discover that of the 8500 odd firearms homicides last year, while 323 are indeed attributed to rifles, almost 1600 are labeled as "firearms, type not stated", so it is very hard to figure out how many were assault weapons.

Cedarford said...

McTriumph said...
The blood of the children of Newton, Connecticut isn't on the hands of the NRA, gun owners of the nation or the 2nd amendment, it's on the hands of politicians that decided to make schools in Connecticut "gun free zones".
============
Only in a gun nut fantasy would the optimal state of the typical elementary school be filled with gun-packing people.

The problem is not lack of teachers with full auto weapons and 1st graders not trained to use a pistol at least...
It is the nexus of crazy people with access to guns, indoctrinated in violence by saturation exposure to violent media and game-playing.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Kirk, perhaps you should know that I knew all along why the right wing is so obsessed with guns and the 2nd Amendment, because in plain speak they have wet dreams about waging a revolution of sorts, or have a paranoid fear of our government.

There is nothing nuanced about it, the plain and obvious truth is there are gullible people who have bought into conspiracy theories put out by organizations such as the NRA and others that our OWN government is the enemy. "Our government should be so small that we could drown it in a bathtub".

BaltoHvar said...

With all the interesting discussion over “Gun Control” not anyone I have read so far tried to approach the prevention of school murder from a systemic perspective.

WARNING:
1. Unscheduled Unannounced entry to this facility is NOT ALLOWED. Those attempting entry shall be responded to with extreme prejudice. Police authorities will be immediately notified.
2. Staff at this {facility} are ARMED. Anyone attempting forced entry will be responded to with extreme prejudice, including mortal peril.

Now let’s pass an ordinance allowing certain School Staff to be armed if they choose. Do not COMPELL them to, but ALLOW them the OPTION. Yet post the signs.

Once school is in session, access is restricted to ONE CHOKE POINT. All visitors MUST pass the choke point and in doing so be authorized to do so. I realize the perp last week shot his way past the security, but having mulitple levels, hardened may have slowed him down. See item 2 above.

ALL ROOMS where children/students are required to be (classrooms, assembly halls and eating areas for example) must have multiple externally locked exits. Entry from the outside is blocked, yet exit is unrestricted in the event of an emergency. Labs, Libraries and Study Rooms are not required to have these doors.

I am not advocating designing "Jails" and calling them "Schools." The designs and technology should be effective, yet innocuous.

Staff and Students MUST be drilled in evacuation weekly. The drills MUST be evaluated, and corrective action taken to allow the most efficient and safe methods, assembly locations, and and familiarity with these methods and assembly locations.

I fear that one of the contributing factors to the horror last week was indeed safety policy. Had the building caught fire or had an explosion, it would have been evacuated. Instead it seems that a form of “duck and cover” was in place instead. That made the type of weapon, magazine size, and firepower MOOT when the victims were fish in a barrel.

Cedarford said...


Tactically, if magazine size is really no big deal, why not be willing to compromise on that in order to keep the right to own guns secure?


It's a good point. Your typical urban liberal arts grad has no clue that of all weapons components, magazines are the easiest to craft from commonly available materials. Sheet metal, plastic sheet or injection molding equipment...accordion springs used in hundreds of other everday items..and a few tools and the measurement specs. That is all you need.
So in extremis, if "magazine capacity shortages" became as critical as a cancer medicine shortage, or vaccine shortage, or an industrial jobs shortage in America - making low tech ammo feeder boxes from metal or plastic would be an easy task.

I'd give that one up in compromise. So long as liberals and progressive jews admit their mass media "violence porn" industry also has to take some major hits. And HIPAA privacy rights for the dangerous and potentially violent mentally diseased need to take some hits. And that we also need to have a "conversation" about black thugs and guns causing 200 times more death and mayhem per year than the sum of mass butchery attacks by the mentally unbalanced each year.

And we also need to get depressed people to seek effective help before they suicide....and while we have to clamp down on the dangerous, potentially violent crazies with the unfortunate effect of limiting their Sacred Parchment rights more than we do now - we have to actually go the other direction on lowering the stigma of other non-dangerous mental illnesses with peers and employers.


Cedarford said...

garage mahal said...
It's more about conceding the power to define your own defense by the very authority you may one day have to defend yourself against.

Except they have nuclear weapons and drones. It's pure fantasy to think ordinary citizens can battle our military.
===================
An incredibly ignorant thing for Garage to say...because unless the US military is willing to commit to total war and mass slaughter of civilians...history has shown ordinary citizens can bleed an American Army of Occupation and eventually cause their withdrawal.

The Vietnamese, Iraq Sunnis, and Afghan "ordinary citizens" armed with little more than low tech small arms, improvised explosives - have more than taught us that.
Plus all the successful low tech Revolution by arms and mass uprising ventures that caused regime change in Latin America, ME, against Russia in Chechnya.

It is impressive how modern Armies can be bled, forced to spend trillions in national treasure they don't have by dedicated low tech guerilla resistance forces.

BaltoHvar said...

Further - I also recognize the importance of addressing the Mental Health issue so glaringly evident by last week's rampage as well. I just don't have any ideas at this point besides the understanding that we must pay much greater attention to the issue as a country all the way down down to being family members.

BaltoHvar said...

Additionally I am NOT comfortable with arms in possession within schools. I would demand that those wishing to CCW do pass extremely stringent screening and training in order to do so.

But still post the signs...

Cedarford said...

Freder Frederson said...
rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report.

Actually, if you bother to look at the actual statistic, not just some article that cites it, you will discover that of the 8500 odd firearms homicides last year, while 323 are indeed attributed to rifles, almost 1600 are labeled as "firearms, type not stated", so it is very hard to figure out how many were assault weapons.

--------------
Freder, that is stupid and obtuse even for you.
That 1600 figure is based on a typical victim found dead with bullet holes in them - of a low velocity caliber like .22 or .9mm that could come from either a pistol or rifle.
But there is no confusion on the forensics of tissue damage assiciated with a high velocity round from a centerfire rifle - be it a hunting rifle or otherwise.

So your 1600 are - perhaps with a handful of exceptions - not from a centerfire rifle.

That leads the 323 - and the vast majority of them are from known and quite ordinary rifle firearms. (MOmmy gives drunk boyfriend too much lip, he shoots her with his .22 rifle or 30-30.
Under 25 a year on average are thought to have come from "military-looking" semi-automatic rifles.

Which was why the Clinton-Feinstein ban on "rifles Diane thought looked scary" - was so useless in impacting firearms deaths.
Which, (the firearms murder rate) continued to lower despite best efforts of black thugs in places like CHicago - since the time the assault weapons ban and high magazine cpapacity bans were lifted.

X said...

Inga's got it all figured out. the 2nd amendment is about revolutionary wet dreams.

pretty smug conclusion from someone born in a country that had the worst government in the history of humankind.

Darrell said...

The 2nd guarantees all the others--and the Constitution itself.


But the Left has other plans. . .

Colonel Angus said...

Kirk, perhaps you should know that I knew all along why the right wing is so obsessed with guns and the 2nd Amendment, because in plain speak they have wet dreams about waging a revolution of sorts, or have a paranoid fear of our government.

Like your obsession the government is going to outlaw your vaginas or ban tampons?

Colonel Angus said...

Actually, if you bother to look at the actual statistic, not just some article that cites it, you will discover that of the 8500 odd firearms homicides last year, while 323 are indeed attributed to rifles, almost 1600 are labeled as "firearms, type not stated", so it is very hard to figure out how many were assault weapons.

Actually when you consider 8500 firearm homicides in a nation of 100 million firearms, its pretty statistically unlikely to be killed by a gun.

Consider that in 2010 there were over 10,000 car deaths as a result of intoxication and suddenly gun owners are less a threat than a GM car and a bottle of gin.

X said...

300 million guns

Inga said...

Nope, nothing at all wrong with the 2nd Amendment, it's the obsession with it and the irrational fear that "the gubmint gonna take all yer guns", based on conspiracy theories and misinformation.

And the country I was born in is not my country. THIS is my country. Maybe I should say here, love it or leave it, if it's so bad why are all you wanna be revolutionaries still living in this magnificent country?

Inga said...

Hey X, can I call you Ishmael?

X said...

Inga, the U. S. government isn't America.

and I don't think you're unamerican. I just find it odd considering your circumstances that you're not more skeptical of government in general. your parents had to move around the world because of it. my ancestors did too.

Darrell said...

based on conspiracy theories and misinformation

Like when you came on this thread believing that the weapons used at the Newtown shooting were in fact automatic weapons, firng more than one round per trigger pull? You must have gotten that from the lies your side is spreading around, didn't you? Now why do you suppose you don't know that automatic weapons didn't factor into any school shooting in the last thirty years in the US?

garage mahal said...

An incredibly ignorant thing for Garage to say...because unless the US military is willing to commit to total war and mass slaughter of civilians...history has shown ordinary citizens can bleed an American Army of Occupation and eventually cause their withdrawal.

How long did Waco last? not very long.

Inga said...

X, it's a part of US. We are not a part of IT. WE the citizens of the United States are representing ourselves. Hence a Representative Democracy. Fearing those who WE vote into office, so much so that some hoard guns to wage revolution against those WE chose to represent us? Obama won the majority of the popular vote twice.

All the rush to buy guns and ammo after 2008, for what? Fun?

Inga said...

We ARE the Government and will continue to be until the day we no longer have a vote.

Colonel Angus said...

it's the obsession with it and the irrational fear that "the gubmint gonna take all yer guns", based on conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Inga women and liberals display an irrational fear the gubmit is going to outlaw your lady parts.

Colonel Angus said...

How long did Waco last? not very long.

I suppose we should send those ATF guys to Afghanistan and show the military how to deal with armed civilian insurgents right?

Colonel Angus said...

All the rush to buy guns and ammo after 2008, for what? Fun?

Ever hear the term tyranny of the majority?

Inga, Democrats want to ban guns much like Republicans want to ban abortion. Everytime a GOP gets elected President, you guys start shrieking about your vaginas.

mark said...

@Inga "Fearing those who WE vote into office, so much so that some hoard guns to wage revolution against those WE chose to represent us? Obama won the majority of the popular vote twice."

So what. Bush won twice and libs ran around (actually STILL run around) screaming he is the anti-christ out to put all the libs in camps, force women to give birth, steal their tampons, blow up more building in NY, blow up another free country .. blah blah blah.

We like shooting guns because it is an enjoyable recreation. Don't understand that? To bad. I don't understand why women with PhD's stocked up on tampons in fear of a Romney presidency.

On the 2nd Amendment. We have brains. They part of your body that is supposed to retain memories, the ability to process new information, and the ability of reason.

Memory: Colorado Labor Wars, Battle of Blair Mountain, KKK (you know ... the terrorist arm of the Democrats), the Little Rock Nine, Waco, Kent State University, etc. (I'm sure you can name more).

Observation: Just look at the World. What is the typical government behavior? Given the chance to vote ... just consider Egypt. Think they women there are better of under Obama's pet terrorist dictator?

The 2nd Amendment isn't really about today. Or stocking up on ammo and guns. It is about tomorrow. And the reality that government changes and we can elect idiots. Idiots with kill lists for their pet drones.

It may come to nothing, but even if today is "safe" the 2nd Amendment is for the days it will not be.

Just go back in time and ask the blacks supported by the NRA against the Klan.

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

@Garage on the "feds breaking into your home."

Interesting thought experiment. More so when you consider a favorite tactic of liberals is SWAT-ing a conservative.

1charlie2 said...

@Victoria

these days it is hard enough for the police departments to find "qualified" candidates to replenish their ranks. Do we want someone less qualified protecting our children? I think not.

That is a false analogy. I can tell you are not a cop, nor have you been close to one. Firearms training is such a small part of their training as to be almost inconsequential when compared to the mountain of things they have to learn.

Arming a "security/quick reaction force" at a school is in no way comparable to training a police officer. It's true cops need to be competent with a firearm.

But, in the profoundly anti-gun state in which I live, armed civilians need to know only 3 sections of the Penal code, not all of it. Because they are NOT cops.

They need learn nothing about high-speed driving, crowd control, traffic direction, non-lethal force, etc. Because they are NOT cops.

Do you really imagine that shooting a gun is all that a cop learns ?

As for finding a few motivated people in a school to take part in such a QRF, having teachers (as well as cops) in my family, I can promise that you would be stunned at how easy it would be, if legal impediments were removed. I did not say "qualified," which is a different matter. But motivated ? Oh, yes.

Now, as to the meat of the proposition, I'd want the QRF to be, frankly. better trained and qualified specifically at firearms use than most local cops I've shot with (I specifically exclude certain federal officers in the USSS and FBI, both of whom have drunk my beer on several occasions.)

Were I a school administrator in some magical district planning this, I'd want the QRF qualified on a pseudo-combat course, since they are not protecting the students from black dots. And I'd expect re-qualification at perhaps 90 day intervals.

That standard, more than motivation, probably makes the idea impractical. It would be rare to find teachers, at least public-school teachers, who would take it seriously enough to meet my standards.

Bob said...

Garage, not to rain on your parade but the ATF was soundly trashed at Waco. I think 6 dead. The National Guard was finally used with armored vehicles (not tanks) in a mistaken attempt to force out a doomsday cult. Shock, they burned to death. Not a smart plan. And Waco went on for about 2 months. What would define as "not long"? That was 3 times longer than the Iraqi Army lasted in 2003.

Bob said...

Inga, your "We ARE the Government" makes for a nice bumper sticker. Please go to a local federal office and try to go past the approved visitors area. Or try to visit restricted areas. Or try to take photos in restricted areas. You'll find that you there are degrees of government and you're in the shallow end.

Inga said...

Bob, seriously? You don't understand the need for security, especially after 9/11?

Bob said...

Garage, the Waco sige lasted 50 days. But then we all suspected facts really aren't your stong suit

Inga said...

Or the Oklahoma City bombing?

Bob said...

"Bob, seriously? You don't understand the need for security, especially after 9/11?"

She asks with great seriousness someone who worked every day for last two years in the Pentagon, served 15 month combat tour in Iraq, and still in reserves.

Inga, how could my life experiences begin to inform/penetrate your liberal theocracy?

Inga said...

Hey Bob, are you watching the news tonight? Looks like your Party is imploding, poor Boehner.

Synova said...

"Hey Bob, are you watching the news tonight? Looks like your Party is imploding, poor Boehner."

This bothers me, Inga, and I'll explain why. Firstly, it's glorying in a personal misfortune (assuming you're right) and it always makes me uncomfortable when people are *glad* when someone else is personally unfortunate. Because, is the financial future of our country really about the destruction of personalities? It's a game, right? A High School Mean Girls type game, an opportunity to tear at people. My clique wins, your clique is so lame.

We weren't supposed to want Obama to fail... remember that? Even when we explained that we wanted his policies to fail we were all still racists because we wanted Obama to fail. So, Inga, what is good about tonight? Is it good because some horrible policy that was going to hurt us (like actually getting a budget, maybe) didn't pass? Is it good because the way is opened to move forward? Is it good because progress was made? Is it GOOD, Inga, because something good happened for *anyone*?

No, it's just heartwarming to imagine our political process in a mess if it hurts your rival? Do you really want the Republicans to implode? Fiddle while Rome burns? What?

Because I'll tell you this... this isn't GOOD for you. It's not GOOD for the Democrats. No one wins. What do you think this is about? Is it about gleeful thoughts when your enemy has a bad day and gleeful thoughts about how when the country goes even farther in the shitter you can make political hay?

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Synova, please. This scolding of yours is disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. As IF the shoe was on the other foot commenters here would not be thrilled.

If Republicans really and truly cared about Americans they would've taken Obama's latest offer. It's poor and middle class Americans who will find no delight in less money to care for their families with. The Republican Party is once again showing their true agenda, which is to put the top two percent's tax cuts above the rest of the populace's well being.

That is shameful. And that is BAD.

Bob said...

Inga, news flash - I am not a rep or dem. I am happy that we appear headed for a ride over the cliff. Since most want big government we all can pay more.

While you seem to believe the republicans are imploding I view as some have decided to attack the problem. Spending! The democrats have been completely unserious on budget since 2006.

EMD said...

don't know about you but I wouldn't want to trust Sister Susie defending my children against an attacker at a school.

You already do.

EMD said...

Both political parties have been completely unserious on budget since 2000.

FIFY.

EMD said...

which is to put the top two percent's tax cuts above the rest of the populace's well being.

Class envy will solve all of our fiscal problems!




Bob said...

Inga, spare us the lecture. The democrats idea of negotiation is "do it my way". House speaker tried to meet Obama halfway and found goal posts moved. So now some pain.

I can't wait for debt ceiling negotiations!

purplepenquin said...

How do you respond when someone flat out lies about you?

I pretty much respond like I just did: I pointed out you were wrong to say that about me, and...since the claim you made was so over the top & out of line...asked for an apology.

You replied by saying that you were wrong to say what ya did but it was actually my fault that you said it; and told me that you weren't gonna give an apology 'cause I shouldn't be "butt-hurt" about the outlandish statement you made about me personally.

In the meantime you have levied insults at me, called me a troll

Please, tell me exactly what was said that you find to be "insulting". I'd like to see how it compares to the outlandish claim you made about me wanting to see children be killed.

And unless "Matt" is one of your sockpuppets I didn't call you a "troll" at all...so quit making stuff up.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 317 of 317   Newer› Newest»