You know, I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.Of course, we are also skeptical that gun control is going to solve our problem. My only point here is that Obama didn't denounce the idea and treat it as crazy, which seemed to be the left/liberal spin last week after NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre made the proposal. Obama is saying that the idea deserves consideration. And to say you doubt that it's the "only answer" is to imply that it may belong in a package of items that together are the answer. In fact, later, he said: "I'm going to be putting forward a package..."
Obama went on to say that he was going to follow "the old adage of Abraham Lincoln's":
That with public opinion there's nothing you can't do and without public opinion there's very little you can get done in this town.That's a paraphrase. What Lincoln actually said was: "In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed." I'll leave it to you to decide who's the better wordsmith.
By the way, when did Washington folk acquire the habit of tacking "in this town" onto every other sentence? And don't you think there's an interesting difference between "opinion" and "sentiment"?
Further evidence that liberals have given up on demonizing LaPierre came from Dianne Feinstein on "Fox News Sunday" today. She's going to introduce a bill banning assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and moderator Chris Wallace asked her "Why is that more effective than the NRA proposal to put armed guards in every school?" She said:
Well, in the first place, 1/3 of America's public schools does have armed guards.Ha! No wonder the spin has shifted. You can't call it sheer lunacy if it's happening in 1/3 of the schools already. Too bad the liberal sentiment molders didn't check the facts first. Too bad they had a hair trigger.
Posts
261 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 261 of 261Inga:
Do not tell me "you know this" when in fact I am quite sure that the opposite is not just true but obviously true.
Inga, I've no reason at all to think that Jay doesn't care about women, children, rape, crime, freedom or anything else.
Bad manners doesn't prove anything.
And since, more or less, on policy type issues, I agree with the positions Jay advocates, as do lots and lots of other people, and the opposite positions are defended by "caring" and I've been accused of racism and whatever else... I can't look at Jay and see him as any different from those others and myself who do care deeply about the safety of children and the equalization and safety of women.
The interesting thing is... when someone does get emotional in defense of something you take it as proof of some sort that they don't care.
Failure to emote, also means a person doesn't care.
I understand these rules. But it still doesn't lead me to believe, minus any evidence, that I can see into another human being's soul.
Synova, Jay's behavior goes beyond bad manners. That you don't recognize this is amazing.
Query - Why is it that at the apogee opf a thread the arc falls off quickly goes downhill?
Inga said...
Synova, Jay's behavior goes beyond bad manners.
You can't seem to grasp why ritty is treated with such contempt.
Go back and read that clown's posts and maybe you'll figure it out.
Synova,
thanks.
And Inga still hasn't figured out that repeatedly accusing someone else of sticking his penis in a gun barrel for sexual gratification, and being in favor of rape and the murder of children is at least as offensive as repeatedly calling someone a 'pussy'. She doesn't even notice insults unless they're aimed at her or her allies, which makes her a filthy hypocrite. Well, not "makes her" - she's been that for a long time - but reveals her, for about the 1000th time, as a filthy hypocrite.
And Ritmo, like a Goldilocks of dishonest argumentation, goes from demanding more evidence to complaining that I've given him too much. The article I linked is clearly organized into separate sections with informative titles, and filled with useful graphs, but Ritmo can't be bothered to look at any of it. We all know why: he suspects that he's wrong, but he doesn't want to know it. I believe that's what Aquinas called 'crass ignorance', when you make sure not to find out the answer to some question (e.g. "is this a legitimate deduction on my taxes") because you're pretty sure the answer will not be the one you want.
Ritmo and Inga advance the lefty narrative one accusation at a time.
And I think that the foolish incomprehension involves the statement that no one wants to take guns away. Of course they do.
No one has been shy about saying so either. I googled... first hit...
http://www.policymic.com/articles/21639/dianne-feinstein-new-assault-weapons-ban-doesn-t-go-far-enough-it-s-only-the-start#comment-anchor
All sorts of people are hot to ban guns. Oh, wait! You said "take them away".
Well, fine then. There's a reason that people are buying as many of the applicable firearms as they can get their hands on even if they don't really think that the gun banners will prevail. On the slim chance all those guns are banned they won't be taken away, right?
My consitutional right may have a time expired date on it. But no one wants to "take away" my guns.
Good to know.
Synova, Obama set the pattern.
Everything they say is a lie to advance the agenda. Nothing less.
Surfed: The threads have an apogee? You really need to quit the crack pipe, dude.
"Why is it that at the apogee opf a thread the arc falls off quickly goes downhill?"
Ive been wondering the same thing.
sometimes when 2 "characters" decide to go after one another the easiest thing to do is just walk away.
Other times the element of humor in the ensuing barrage of insults can be entertaining in itself. It's a fine line. It's can be a sort of spectator sport. Of course no one wants to watch the same matchup night after night.
Pogo:
We have met the enemy and he is them!
Hah!
Obama when he was at the Joyce Foundation, he developed strategies
to prevent acquisition of firearms,
in the state legislature, he proposed a bill that would make it impossible to have a gun store, within 5 miles of a school, that would make it virtually impossible to obtain a gun, legally, back in 1999.
"Synova, Jay's behavior goes beyond bad manners. That you don't recognize this is amazing."
You didn't ask me to recognize bad manners, you asked me to recognize something else, something there is no evidence for.
"You didn't ask me to recognize bad manners, you asked me to recognize something else, something there is no evidence for"
To be a good liberal you must possess the ability to see good where none exist, or evil when there is no evidence.
This is another example,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0
which puts Fast and Furious into context.
That's mostly the problem I have with modern "hate crimes"
They require the judge to divine "heart"condition of the accused.
And this is a task for which only God is equipped.
Big Mike,
Don't get fooled! America has a higher homicide rate than many other developed countries; but in overall violent crime we're just in the middle of the pack.
On that point;
http://pjmedia.com/blog/gun-control-fails-say-statistics-from-gun-control-advocates/?singlepage=true
I did notice Ritmo repeatedly accusing Jay of defending a child killer's right to buy guns to kill children. Over and over and over.
Is there anything about that accusation that resembles "good faith"? I don't think so. If it were directed at me I may well blow my top, too. Which was undoubtedly the point.
If pressed on the issue I think I'd probably come down on the side of the 2nd Amendment requiring an absolute right for civilians to possess military weapons without limitation. If pressed. Yes... a hobbyist with an M1 Abrams tank. Why the heck not?
The Constitution doesn't protect rights only up to the point where I have to leave my comfort zone.
Obama seems amenable to the NRA idea of armed guards in schools.
Why would Obama turn down an opportunity to federalise yet another state responsibility and grow the federal payroll.
Ha! EMD, you found the long version.
What is "demand a plan" anyhow. What does that mean? Is that like Obama having a package? What?
I understand that liberals (okay, some of them, so I'm not totally slandering the innocent few) think that "doing something" is the important part and being seen to care and call for action are the important part. The sanctimonious twits demand a plan?
How about this one? Leave the gun laws alone after a tragedy. Stop trying to use the tragedy to promote your agenda. Fewer people would be buying guns if you'd just shut up.
Synova:
That's one of the signs of a troll, or of one particular kind of troll: he tells vile lies about other commenters, but without using any obscenities, and then gets all "how dare you? my virgin ears!" when his lies elicit a simple obscenity or two in reply.
(As someone said long ago at a 'beltway bandit' near Tysons Corner: "I certainly hope your ears are virgins . . . .")
Anyway, it's rather like what some middle-schoolers do to get fellow students in trouble with the teacher. They use quiet but vicious needling insults that the teacher will not notice to goad another child into an outburst that the teacher will notice, and then punish, while the one who started it goes free.
OT: I wish Hillary a speedy and safe recovery. Blood clots are nothing to mess around with.
I guess no one here is the least bit ashamed for implying she was simply avoiding testifying, or the other despicable things said about her here.
OT: I agree. I hope she is well. Honestly and seriously. I do not wish Hillary any ill fortune.
I say that because... dang if the whole Benghazi thing wouldn't make an incredible outline for a thriller, fill in the unknown parts with conspiracy and twists and build a whole story at the level that "Fargo" was "based on news reports" which is almost not at all... a person goes missing so the movie invents a chipper shredder... that level of ficitonalization.
And the end scene with the person who knew all the secrets silenced by a "blood clot" to the brain... it's brilliant. Pan slowly out, everything is gray, she's looking blankly out a window, maybe nodding a little, pans out far enough and a nurse comes to wrap a shawl around her shoulders and speaks the way a nurse does when the patient is non-responsive. The secrets buried forever.
Very Fargo-ish.
Also, Inga... if she can't testify someone should do it for her. She can't be the sole person with the information she's got whatever it is.
She may be honestly ill, but you can bet that it will be used by the administration to block a full and open investigation, if you recall, the one you assured us would happen after the election. Someone in Hillary's office has access to every bit of information that she would have.
When a fully informed substitute is presented by the administration committed to transparency, you can call me a liar.
I guess no one here is the least bit ashamed for implying she was simply avoiding testifying, or the other despicable things said about her here.
You know whats "despicable" Inga?
The fact that under her responsibility, Americans died in a way she could have prevented.
Putting armed guards in schools is almost as retarded an idea as banning 30-round clips for rifles.
Naturally, I expect we'll "compromise" on doing both.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
- Bertrand Russell
Inga the lying Obama whore would gladly sacrifice her daughter in pursuit of Obama's True Leftist goals.
We know this because she was defending Obama's letting the Libyan ambassador die in favor of arresting a filmmaker for free speech that Obama knew had nothing to do with the Libyan ambassador's death.
Inga the lying Obama whore, when your miserable vagina-discharge comes home in a body bag...remember...YOUR VOTE put her in there.
Enjoy the decline, babykiller!Inga the lying Obama whore would gladly sacrifice her daughter in pursuit of Obama's True Leftist goals.
We know this because she was defending Obama's letting the Libyan ambassador die in favor of arresting a filmmaker for free speech that Obama knew had nothing to do with the Libyan ambassador's death.
Inga the lying Obama whore, when your miserable vagina-discharge comes home in a body bag...remember...YOUR VOTE put her in there.
Enjoy the decline, babykiller!
Not only did they lie about the motive for the attack, but ran commercials, in Pakistan, which only encouraged the likes of the Pakistani
Railway Minister, to offer a bounty for the cartoonist, all the way, Zawahiri was laughing all the way to his local Standard Charter branch,
Obama's all in favor of armed guards at schools---ready to discharge their weapons into anyone who dares question his greatness.
Fuck you and enjoy the decline, fascists!
If Nancy Pelosi thinks a bill that bans magazines over 10 rounds will make the GOP squirm she's in delusion-land. Given the average Glock holds 15 rounds and that's the most popular handgun in America, she will have no traction for such a bill. Now if she submitted a ban on 30-round magazines it would be different, but going for 10+ is political suicide except in San FranSICKO.
@Ignga:
NO, we are not ashamed.
She is a left wing politician, and a Clinton to boot. She lies and lies and lies all the time.
Fact: President Obama let Americans die that he could have saved. And watched it all on TV. And laughed about it. And then arrested a man who he KNEW had nothing to do with it.
Enjoy the decline, SWPL whore!
It was good enough from 1999-2003, now it doesn't count,
Hillary is despicable, she stayed married to a rapist.
Until the records are unsealed, no one's opinion will change.
One thing is for sure, historians will have a field day with the 90s on.
Even after the evidence, some people's opinions still won't change.
The ideology isn't flawed, it's just that the right person or people wasn't/weren't in place.
It'll work this time!
Check out the Drudge linked video exposing how Hollywood is trying to wash their hands.
Honest... Jay's not so bad.
I guess no one here is the least bit ashamed for implying she was simply avoiding testifying, or the other despicable things said about her here.
How can you tell what's the truth, Inga? Seriously.
Maybe you still think John Edwards wasn't boffing Reilla Hunter. That's the state of the press. The National Enquirer has to print the truth.
Hilary hasn't been seen for 3 weeks?
I think maybe she got a tip from Hugo about a great DR in Cuba.
Hugo and Hillary... it even has a nice ring.
For every armed guard (Achilles) there is a sniper (Paris).
Where there is a will, forget about your red and blue pills, and look out for the girl with the devil's food cupcake.
Yeah the Glocks and Tasers worn in the halls of inner city academia are a certain comfort to me in my teaching dotage.
Mediocre irony? Ideologically imposed blindness? Anti-gun folks speak of "commonsense" or "rational" gun control measures. What they really mean is restrictions that they favor, most of which have no basis in reality – much less being anything like common sense.
They will try [to pass gun control laws]. You'd have to be completely naive not to believe so. If by some snowball's chance it doesn't pass this time (he'll blame the Republicans in the house if it doesn't), for the next shooting (and there will be one) he WILL get it passed.
Then we'll see if the US Supreme Court can do what it was chartered to do, as opposed to creating law.
With it likely that there will be 2 new Obama nominees on the court I think the odds are that they will create law. And we might see similar decisions for the next 20 years or so. Consequences.
Armed guards in every school might not be necessary. All that might be needed would be to eliminate schools as gun-free zones. As things stand now most schools, by dint of their gun-free status, serve as magnets for disturbed copy-cats seeking their moments of fame. But allowing licensed concealed carry by staff would create an uncertainty that might at least lead to the selection of targets other than children. And it wouldn't create another bureaucracy.
But I think most any collection of folks, such as audiences, gatherings, etc., in a so-called "gun-free" area is going to attract the occasional multiple shooting by crazy people. I don't see any gun control measure, short of confiscation, doing much to prevent such horrific events.
For me a commonsense step to prevent crazy people from shooting up the populace would be to put the crazy people back where they used to be – in institutions where can be made to take their medication and their contact with society can be monitored. Right now they live on the street unless they have family or friends who subsidize their madness either because they mistakenly believe they can deal with it or because they have no other choice, no practical legal avenue for commitment.
Don't get fooled! America has a higher homicide rate than many other developed countries; but in overall violent crime we're just in the middle of the pack.
This is extraordinarily politically incorrect to point out, but the White homicide rate is not all that high. The homicide rate in this country that causes our overall statistics to look so bad is the Black murder rate. A very large number of inner city Blacks killing inner city Blacks, not that many non-Blacks killing Blacks, and a relatively low, but higher rate of Blacks killing non-Blacks. No surprise then that even Black leadership is scared of young Black males.
As I have pointed out before, this isn't a racial problem, per se. There is nothing inherent in Black DNA to cause this. Rather, I would suggest that it is a result of a weak Black family structure due to slavery made much worse through the welfare state, esp. starting with LBJ's War on Poverty, which essentially has subsidized multiple generations of fatherless families.
Control for Black inner city/gang violence in this country, which the UK, Australia, Norway, etc., do not face, and the U.S. all of a sudden doesn't seem to have all that much gun violence, esp. given the huge numbers of guns legally in civilian hands.
John Edwards famously talked about the Two Americas (living in his mansion in one, across the street from those living in a trailer park in the other). We really do have two Americans now - the suburban and rural Red America that so many whites live in, and the urban Blue America with its violent inner cities and rampant gang violence. And, this distinction can be easily seen here with their diametrically opposed views on gun control. Of course, Red America has little compassion for Blue America these days, figuring that they are reaping what they sowed, with their collectivistic welfare state politics ultimately leading to societal breakdown, and the inevitable violence.
"He's simply acknowledging the irrational majority of Americans who like the idea of arming the school house gates as much as a rational majority wants stricter gun control laws."
M-kay. Apparently, we've got two majorities in this country, i.e. there are more than 100% of population in America. Sigh. At least we know which side Obama is, since his kids go to schools with armed guards.
You Obama haters and gun lovers are really something. The title of your post is totally wrong and you know it. He's no more amenable to the unworkable smoke-screen solution than the most exuberant nay-sayers are, he's just expressing it more softly.
It's impractical because most schools would require more than one old retired cop to provide security. Some schools are vast and sprawling, proper security would require a dozen well-trained men. Start multiplying that by the number of schools.
The whole discussion which was started by Wayne the con-artist is a smokescreen to deflect attention from the first real problem, easy availability of guns to unfit people. Now, that's a concrete problem about which something could easily be done. Those who resist it are guilty of being accessories before and after the fact.
I am all in favor of arming teachers and administrators who wish to be armed. Can't help but increase security in those schools by increasing the FUD factor. Currently, schools in many states are designated no-immediate-armed response zones (aka "gun free zones") which guarantee shooters the time needed to rack up decent body counts before they typically kill themselves. And, they need the body counts to make themselves famous, which most often seems to be the goal in these shooting.
It is, of course, tragic that a lot of schools, and esp. high schools, are violent enough these days to need, and often already have, a police presence on campus. As I have suggested before, progressive economic policies, aimed at creating a permanent voting block to support redistributionist policies and liberal politicians is a good part of the reason for this. Nevertheless, it is a fact of life. And, probably more schools need an armed police presence.
That said, one problem with the President's suggestion here is that it is the usual one-size-fits-all type of solution. The schools in this country range from inner city hell holes to ritzy private schools like the one that the First Daughters attend (as well apparently as Gregory's children). The high school in the town in NW Montana where I seem to be spending half my years these days likely doesn't need a police presence - it is not nearly as violent, there are likely guns in the trucks in the parking lot, and some of the school staff are probably armed (and, yes, you do see open carry around there). But, I seriously doubt that Obama really understands that his proposal makes little sense throughout much of the country, because he used to live in one of those big liberal cities, was part of the Democratic political machine there, and derives much of his support from liberal politics and interest groups, which are centered in the same environments.
Mikie, do you really think that banning scary looking guns would eliminate all murder in this country? Now, you may say that's it's an unfair requirement - but then, that was your standard for having one cop per school.
As for guns getting into unfit hands - be serious. If some people are "unfit" to carry guns, then they are unfit to drive and be outside of a place without bars - let alone be allowed to vote. So, the issue is not about guns, comrade. But then, why would an accessory to statism like you think about details, right?
ISTM it is up to states and school districts to decide how best to protect the schools, I'm not sure why Obama needs to seem amenable or against. Except that being against armed guards would be silly, since there are plenty of schools already employing them.
Plus, as others have pointed out, what can Obama say? His own daughters go to a school with armed guards. His daughters are not more important to him than other parents' are to them. And they certainly aren't in more constant danger than kids at some inner city schools.
As for the magazine clip issue, isn't it kind of silly?
I can see banning them, but can't manufacturers just make the same thing, call it a candy dispenser or a paperclip holder, and still sell it?
I have in mind some "glass pens" my nephew showed me in a party store, that are basically used for crack pipes.
1/3 already have armed guards? That's... way more than I thought.
Fascinating to see Wayne and BArack talk about the adding / subtracting guns. This allows both to avoid the obvious issue of mental health. IMO this too shall go the way of immigration reform.
Bruce,
"I am all in favor of arming teachers and administrators who wish to be armed."
I sure hope you don't really mean that, in the active-voice sense you said it. Wouldn't it just be enough to remove all the legal impediments to self-selected teacher and admins carrying?
This would also have the beneficial side effect of shortening our laws a bit by removing some of the ad-hoc special cases, rather than adding yet more exceptions-to-exceptions. See here and here for examples of the convolution many of us currently live with. I have sometimes used the former RCW to great effect by either reading it aloud, or giving folks just enough time for one read-through, then asking, "Whether, and if so how far and in what circumstances, can a CPL holder bring his/her firearm onto a K-12 campus?" It takes quite a while to trace it all out.
Hey all,
Be assured you're having some real effect, if MikeB shows up to spew his anti-gun nonsense.
Some schools are vast and sprawling, proper security would require a dozen well-trained men.
Hysterical.
Sure, he seems amenable. He also seems intelligent, hard working and sincere - and is none of those things.
We'll know for certain he is going to renege on this when he prefaces a statement on it with, "Let me be clear..."
Post a Comment