NO, just NO.
We reject your solutions. You are part of the problem. You are in large part the core of the problem.
NO. We will not implement a single thing you suggest, not now, not ever.
You, your resources are shit.
We will not go down your path any longer. You will get no government money ever for your plans.
What you will do is to antagonize the majority of people in the United States, including gun owners.
We reject your solutions. You are part of the problem. You are in large part the core of the problem.
NO. We will not implement a single thing you suggest, not now, not ever.
You, your resources are shit.
We will not go down your path any longer. You will get no government money ever for your plans.
What you will do is to antagonize the majority of people in the United States, including gun owners.
Your response seems a bit harsh considering we already do this in a sense....provide armed protection for certain classes of people.
ReplyDeleteWe have armed guards for the Congress, the President, Mayor Bloomberg has them, along with countless other people.
Why are these people so special? Are you saying their lives are worth more than those of our nations children?
There is more than 1 cause for these atrocities, but you seem to reject anything which may come from the NRA or any other pro-gun entity.
There is a significant reason for the Congress, the President and other people in political office. It is not that their lives are more important to us than children (I doubt that is true).
ReplyDeleteIt is because if something happened to those people, it would obstruct the function of government, thereby having a very disruptive and even dangerous effect on far more lives than just those immediate individuals.
For example, if the head of FEMA was assassinated or a significant number of members of Congress were assassinated, it could cripple our ability to respond to an event like Hurricane Sandy, or a terrorist attack like 9/11.
The protection and well-being of so many more people are dependent on those people being able to keep government functioning.
To even suggest otherwise is to make a straw argument, a false argument that doesn't really exist, which is part of what angers me. Beyond that, La Pierre also inaccurately stated that violent crime is rising; it has gone DOWN for five years, very steadily, as noted by Wolff Blitzer on CNN right after the speech. And also as fact checked by Blitzer, the claim that La Pierre made about a cut in funding for school safety was NOT about a budget cut, it was about the agreed elimination of underperforming programs that was offset by another $480 million in safe school programs expansions of what DID work well.
People do not want guns in schools, and people are rejecting, in increasing numbers, the idea that the solution to gun violence is more guns and more violence. La Pierre has missed that change. He is just trying to squeeze out more money for his gun manufacturers.
I don't believe La Pierre gives a damn about who dies. This is the same man who on the one hand now pretends to care about dangerously mentally ill getting guns, but the NRA forced through legislation that ALLOWS those found by a court to be dangerously mentally ill to get their gun rights back with little or no review.
So, with all that dishonesty in his speech (and I haven't touched on all the flaws fact-turds, and failures of it -- why would I not be unhappy with it?
ReplyDeleteHere is a better explanation for why I find such fault with the NRA:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/12/dee-fense-deefense-no-more-this-is-not.html
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteI think Jim Beam is makin' the rounds. He was over at Southern Beale's blog and left a "boo hoo, it's NOT THE GUNZ!" comment.
Unless he's a regular commentor here, I suspect a bot.
Weenie LaPutrid wants armed guards in all U.S. schools? and he wants congress to pay for them?
Okey-dokey.
I heard on the radio, shortly after Weenie's screed, that the per employee cost of one armed guard would probably be around $80K/annum. A quick google shows about 105,000 public schools at all levels. So at one per, we're looking at $8.4B per year. Obviously many schools have numerous buildings, satellite campuses and the like. My local SUNY campus has at least a dozen full-time University Police (State Police command & control) that are averaging north of $80K/annum pay & benefits. To put ONE cop in each campus building would probably require them tripling or quadrupling the manpower. The HS down the street from me has at least six entrances. How many armed guards do you need for a place like that?
Yeah, right, Weenie, teh same gunzloonz who are nearly 100% TeapartyIdon'twannapayNOfriggin'taxes are gonna wanna add something over $10B to the annual budget? Sure they do.
Hey, tell ya what. Howzabout we take Wayne's suggestion by adding a $500/gun "sin tax" to each sale and requiring that all firearms owners who own the sort of weapons used in mass shootings purchase liability insurance. Chew on that.
No democommie, no bot. I just like to ask questions of the those on the anti gun side. I would ask Japete the same question, but she would never publish the comment.
ReplyDeleteI never said the gun wasn't a factor, but one of many factors. Not everyone wants to admit there are other factors. They just go for a knee jerk reaction.
Dog Gone - with as many bureaucrats as we have in this country, there may be minimal disruption but the chain of command is pretty well set. Do not construe this as me wanting anyone to be shot, but there is a 2nd in command in FEMA who could take over.
FEMA has a number of capable people. The issue is that the people guarding those places - or in the case of certain individuals, like the President - are about preserving more than an individual life; they are about preserving the function of government that affects far more people as a result of their safety.
DeleteIt would be differently disruptive, potentially affecting the entire nation, to lose the cabinet, or national security advisers, or a number of the members of Congress. La Pierre misrepresented why those people -- and with them, those places, like the Pentagon (guards are not only protecting the people La Pierre named, but things like data bases, key command equipment, etc.) -- receive protection. It is not because their lives are individually more important, but to protect what they do for the rest of the nation. I think that is a valid justification. Beyond that, unlike most school children, those people are often threatened.
Guns are the only factor that are unique to the United States. Other nations have criminals, they have violent movies, music lyrics and video games. They have crazy people (although most nations care for theirs better than we do for ours). The claim that our media promotes copy cat killers also doesn't hold water, based on surveys, studies and careful analyses. Gun free zones have less shootings than zones where guns are allowed -- which have more mass shootings than schools.
There was not a single valid point in the entire 30 minute speech. So, no, unless you can prove to me that there are any factors unique to the United States other than guns that explain why we have 19 - 20 times more shootings than any other developed country, I don't think there are very many factors other than guns that are actually significant.
If you have facts that prove otherwise, please share them here.
"No democommie, no bot. I just like to ask questions of the those on the anti gun side."
ReplyDeleteWell, you kinda lose my attention with that sentence. When one seeks reasonable discussion with anyone, it is best not to demonize them.
The "anti gun side" is not one that I, mikeb302000, Southern Beale and a lot of other folks happen to be on. If you said, speaking of me, that I was, "anti KKKrazzeepantsassholez wit teh gunz", then you'd be accurate.
Gunz are not the ONLY issue. They're just the ONLY issue that is off the table for the NRA and it's less intelligent and well hinged members. Sorry, that's not a dig against the honest, decent people who hunt or shoot for sport. I can even understand that some people (nowhere near the numbers stated by the NRA) need a firearm for personal defense. The idea that somebody needs to have a mini-armory in their home or shed along with enough ammunition to outfit a platoon of soldiers on a 3 day "sweep" through hostile territory is, on its face, ludicrous.
When somebody tells me I'm anti-gun when they mean I'm anti-anybodyhavinggunz, well, that conversation is over.