The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Looks like the FOX News PR team has a new slogan... replacing "Fox News. fair and Balanced" with "Fox News: People use it as an insult, not as advice. Nice try though."

I like it.

 

Yes, we have our fair share of morons too.

 

More proof the NRA is a terrorist, fringe organization that needs to be marginalized and ridiculed.

 

Armed guards in schools is something Clinton has proposed and already exists in many schools today. Doesn't that make Obama fringe for not supporting it and the NRA more in the mainstream?

But hey, marginalization and ridicule is easier, more fun, and more effective.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>"Rifles were used in all of five murders in New York state in 2011; fists killed 28." <a href="http://t.co/zuOwSsYV" title="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/andrew_empty_gun_win_JAKxXIhSm8I7UuRh0VG2dN">nypost.com/p/news/opinion…</a></p>&mdash; John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/291500172209442816" data-datetime="2013-01-16T11:00:31+00:00">January 16, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

More guns out of the great state of New York?

better and better

 

I'll take them.

 

look at the hypocrites!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wt1Zy_ASNyA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

That's pretty hilarious.

 

probably edited and a total fraud like the other work O'Keefe has done.

 

Umm, how can he edit that? They are openly SAYING that they like what it stands for, but it would invite criminals in.

 

I don't know. I won't watch anything that fraud puts out, so I didn't even see it. I don't know what anybody says on that video. I'm not really having a serious discussion about that video, just pointing out that it comes from a known fraud who's edited things before in order to incriminate groups and has been arrested for breaking the law in another stunt.

I honestly could care less what's on that video. So maybe you're right about it. Either way I won't watch it.

 

Again, the NRA is a cancer on the body politic.

via TPM --

Yep, Big Liars

Last week there was a big commotion about that NRA ad calling the President an ‘elitist hypocrite’ for sending his daughters to a school with armed guards while denying that same armed protection to kids around the country.

Most people focused on how disgusting it was to drag the President’s daughters into a political attack on the president or how the president actually wasn’t opposed to schools having armed guards and a bunch of other stuff. After all, the leadership of the NRA is one of the most rancid players in US politics. But it turns out the critics weren’t aiming high enough with the critiques.

Everyone basically took it for granted that it must be true that Sidwell Friends School, the school in question, has armed guards. After all, the President’s daughters go there, as do the kids of a lot of other high profile people in DC. So it does seem sort of plausible. And why would they say it if it weren’t true? Famous last words.

But it turns out the whole thing was a lie. Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s factchecker who I’ve frequently criticized on other matters, picked up the phone and called Sidwell and they emphatically deny the claim. According to Ellis Turner, Associate head of Sidwell Friends, “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.”

Obviously, the President’s daughters have very high powered and armed Secret Service protection, which is a statutory requirement and the need for which is obvious to every thinking person. But the school itself does not have armed guards.

 

We need a resource officer in every school. I'll gladly pay 5 dollars a week to ensure my kids get school defense against threats. If others can't pay the five dollar then that is where the government comes in. Preferably equipped with an AR15.

 

Agreed. We had a police officer in our schools when I was in high school... in the mid 1990s, and I didn't go to an inner city school. What's the big deal?

I disagree about the AR15 though, they should be using an 7.62 AR-10, or an AA-12 shotgun.

 

Agree or disagree?

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/Lh1zornUVv8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/Lh1zornUVv8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

An emotional speech that suffers from a lack of logic and the same fault as his accusation - he "stands" on the graves of his fellow soldiers to oppose (what I assume is) a gun regulation just as the supporters of said regulation "stand" on the graves of dead children.

Attacking the motive by claiming they did nothing about dead children in Chicago is equally ludicrous, given that this appears to be a local forum. If he is concerned about dead children in Chicago (which he's not - he's simply looking to score points against Obama), he can go there and give another misguided but passionate speech.

Finally, the idea that legislators should only be willing to pass a law if they are willing to be the front-line of enforcement is just stupid and even dangerous. That idea unwittingly argues for a military style or police-state leadership (after all, they're the only ones capable of being front-line enforcement). As we've seen around the world, military-leadership is almost always inevitably corrupt and dictatorial. As someone who name-drops the Constitution so often, he should know better.

There's more I might criticize, but given that there is no context on what exactly he is addressing. However, while he probably wouldn't like it, I would certainly tell him to his face that (1) his rights aren't more important and (2) he's wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution.

All that being said, I do agree that voting should be open and transparent. Not sure if what he implies about the legislature is true (again, no context) however.

 

This post pretty much exactly sums up my feelings on the guy's speech.

 

Coming back down to the norm. An expected spike from the unprecedented tragedy.

The future looks very bright for lawful gun owners.

 

There wasn't a point where it looked at all dim for lawful gun owners.