×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

More Questions than Answers from the NRA

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about a year and a half ago

First Person Shooters (Games) 21

Today the NRA unveiled its new plan for school safety. For reasons not clear, it has received quite a bit of fanfare. In particular, it includes:

Today the NRA unveiled its new plan for school safety. For reasons not clear, it has received quite a bit of fanfare. In particular, it includes:

The 225-page report presented on Tuesday includes eight recommendations, most notably a fuller articulation of the NRAâ(TM)s proposal following the Newtown shooting to place armed security in every school in the country.

The report outlines a model training program for school resource officers and school personnel that, along with proposed changes to various state laws, would enable designated school personnel to carry firearms after having undergone training.

Yet of course it does not offer a plan to pay for any of this. They also don't seem to have a grasp on the actual numbers (of guards and guns) required to fulfill this plan. Consider a few things:

  • How many doors were at the schools you attended as a child? I can't think of a single school I went to that had only one door. The high school I went to likely had at least 7 different entrances which even a really fast runner would need over a minute to get between; my middle school probably had at least 4 and my elementary I would guess had at least three. Do you put a guard at each entrance?
  • How do you prepare the guards for armed attacks? We have heard recently that the Newtown shooter was wearing a bullet-proof vest; the Batman shooter was wearing armor as well.
  • What do you do if the teachers and staff don't want to carry weapons on campus? Don't they have the right to refuse?
  • What if the community is opposed to guns in the school? Do you force them to fire teachers to hire armed guards anyways?
  • Does it really make sense to arm most teachers? The same tenure system that conservatives seldom pass at the opportunity to bash means that many of our teachers are older; do you want to rely on someone in their 50s or 60s who took a few evening gun classes to defend our children?

In other words, the NRA plan is epically short-sighted (and that is being kind). They want to solve the violence problem by bringing in more lethal force. They seem to live in a world very different from the country I reside in. They apparently are so afraid of violence that they feel firing teachers to hire security guards is somehow a good move.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343341)

The whole point of disarming anyone with "gun free" zones seems to be about pointing out where the easy shooting galleries are for the sickos.
Then again, I view the 1st & 2nd Amendments, the whole Bill of Rights, really, as vaguely prophetic about our Orwellian age. ManBearPig's pseudo-religious pablum on the topic of anthropogenic global climate non-constant warming variability [nytimes.com]

From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

is as false on the topic of climate as this gun grabbing
as is the topic of slaughtering the unborn
as is the topic of [fruitless orifice here] marriage
as is modern monetary theory [unitedliberty.org] .

Pardon my rantlet stinking up your journal, but all of this Appeal to Legislation for succor amounts to putting another layer of Progressive plaster on the cast.
Aye, you can keep poking along on that stiffened limb, but try not to notice that you're not insectoid, and, once the bone was knit, you needed to be liberated, not further ensconced with another endless bill, passed unread, full of un-intended (or perhaps all too intended) consequences.
Repeat after me: There is no salvation in legislation.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343541)

Repeat after me: There is no salvation in legislation.

How does one achieve the NRA's goals of armed guards in every school without legislation? Schools in general in this country are broke, they don't have money to hire armed guards (particularly since most schools would need several in order to even guard only the most commonly used doors). There are already too many kids in the classrooms, so firing teachers to hire security guards won't be popular, either.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344119)

Schools in general in this country are broke

Can we pull this thread? Can we point out that the economic pump has been cavitating for some time? Not to say you're lacking a point here, but if local government has been so thoroughly taxed to death that it can't afford security, then maybe a broader analysis is necessary before zooming back in to the specific question of school security.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344479)

Not to say you're lacking a point here, but if local government has been so thoroughly taxed to death that it can't afford security, then maybe a broader analysis is necessary before zooming back in to the specific question of school security.

I don't know how school district taxes work where you live, but where I have lived so far generally each district has to raise the bulk of its funds by taxing the people who live there. Furthermore in most places where I have lived, any time that the school district has tried to put a budget referendum up to a vote, it has been rejected by the voters. Hence the districts are generally not inclined to ask for more money from their residents, even to deal with problems like asbestos in buildings or buses from the 80s with 400,000 miles on them.

If the schools aren't able to raise money by referendum, but they are dictated to add security, the only option they have left is to lay off existing staff. And if they are looking to hire full time employees they will likely need to can full time employees to have a chance of balancing the books. In the case of schools, that will most likely mean firing teachers as they don't have many other full time employees left in the schools. Even more so, they would likely need to pay the armed guards more than they pay new teachers, likely needing to fire around 1.5 teachers or more for each guard. That quickly increases class sizes.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43346129)

If there is only one legal tender in the land, the dollar, then what is meant by "federal dollars"?
I'll tell you: the economy runs backward. And, like a car driven in reverse, you can get sluggish motion.
So long as the Federal Reserve
- causes money to appear to inflate the stock market,
- props up the pension plans,
- throws money at universities for student loans
, - jawbones banks into giving lousy mortgage & car loans, and
- generally supports vote buying schemes for the can't-balance-a-budget Congress,
this noise can continue indefinitely.
Sure is a good thing no one asks questions when making an alteration to the funding profile for the local school is seemingly impossible. Curiosity is hurtful.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43346301)

Sure is a good thing no one asks questions when making an alteration to the funding profile for the local school is seemingly impossible. Curiosity is hurtful.

OK, lets put the ball in your hands. You're saying that people are afraid to ask questions or try new things. Lets imagine a situation where you are the superintendent of a typical suburban school district with a few dozen total schools and several thousand students. For the sake of argument we'll say that the board is stacked with your close personal friends who agree with you on everything and will vote 100% to approve whatever you want, hence you can make any change you desire.

How would you pay to add 2 armed guards to every elementary school, 4 to every middle school, and 8 to every high school? Where will you get the money from, since your area voters won't give you any more funds?

There is no need to show your math, just tell me what financial coffers you will raid to make this happen. This is something that the NRA refuses to address. I'm not asking you to speak for them, I'm just curious to know how you would envision seeing this done within budget.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43352033)

Where will you get the money from, since your area voters won't give you any more funds?

Referendum to the voters? Training for teachers in exchange for tax credits? Neighborhood watch-style volunteers? Haircut across all other sacred cow programs? I mean, you can allow/disallow all the creative endpoint solutions you like, but the fundamental problem is that the people outside the Beltway have too little power, and the people inside the Beltway too much.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43353959)

i apologize if I am being overly pedantic here, but I want to make sure that I am expressing my concerns in a coherent way - even if you don't agree with them.

Where will you get the money from, since your area voters won't give you any more funds?

Referendum to the voters?

This would be off the table for the reason stated above - the voters won't approve anything that raises their property taxes.

Training for teachers in exchange for tax credits?

Teachers with guns is not the same thing as professional armed guards at the doors. For one, some teachers simply won't want to have guns. Another, they are supposed to teach, not patrol; law enforcement is not part of their job. And how many teachers do you recall from your childhood who would be the types you would want protecting kids in a firefight? For most teachers that I remember, the best we could have hoped for them to do would be to barricade the door to prevent someone from coming in with a weapon.

Neighborhood watch-style volunteers?

How would you screen volunteers to ensure that they are stable enough to be trusted with lethal force inside a public school? The timing of the school day suggests that you would end up with a lot of unemployed people bringing their guns in if you go for that option.

Haircut across all other sacred cow programs?

You're getting closer to my question with that answer. Which programs do you think are overfunded and deserve to be cut to bring in armed security forces?

I mean, you can allow/disallow all the creative endpoint solutions you like, but the fundamental problem is that the people outside the Beltway have too little power, and the people inside the Beltway too much.

It may be that school districts in your area are run differently than those in areas where I have lived. Where I have lived so far, the influence from Washington DC upon local schools has not been that great. Sure, there are federal standards saying that students should know certain things to finish high school, but the schools have had a fair deal of flexibility beyond that. Is there a specific act from DC that you see as impeding schools from pursuing whatever security measures they want?

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43354049)

Where I have lived so far, the influence from Washington DC upon local schools has not been that great. Sure, there are federal standards saying that students should know certain things to finish high school, but the schools have had a fair deal of flexibility beyond that. Is there a specific act from DC that you see as impeding schools from pursuing whatever security measures they want?

Not direct influence, but to say that the utterly jacked up Department of Education lacks influence, or to ignore the economic reality of what DC has done/is doing to this country is to miss some crucial data in this discussion.
We're hamstrung at all levels because idiotic, bi-partisan, anti-capitalist policies have thoroughly sodomized everything. The sad truth that the economy is so wrung out, one can't even discuss security measures in schools, is but a case in point.
So, of the proffered solutions, the flat, across-the-budget haircut to locate enough money to support security improvements seems the least-worst approach.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43354233)

Where I have lived so far, the influence from Washington DC upon local schools has not been that great. Sure, there are federal standards saying that students should know certain things to finish high school, but the schools have had a fair deal of flexibility beyond that. Is there a specific act from DC that you see as impeding schools from pursuing whatever security measures they want?

Not direct influence, but to say that the utterly jacked up Department of Education lacks influence, or to ignore the economic reality of what DC has done/is doing to this country is to miss some crucial data in this discussion.

I would not try to make a claim that the ED doesn't have any influence in the matter at all, however to the best of my knowledge their influence has more to do with curriculum than with budgetary matters. Every school district I attended as a child managed their own budgets with very little influence coming from outside their geographic area.

We're hamstrung at all levels because idiotic, bi-partisan, anti-capitalist policies have thoroughly sodomized everything.

My first question on this statement is whether you are still talking specifically about DC influence on local school districts, or are you talking about school districts in general? I suppose one could call some local district policies "anti-capitalist", but of course the residents can vote with ballots, money, and their own feet if they object to them. However I am not immediately aware of federal policies regarding school management that could be reasonably classified as "anti-capitalist".

The sad truth that the economy is so wrung out, one can't even discuss security measures in schools, is but a case in point.

I have never known of a school district which was required to report a profit at the end of the year. If you wish to make an argument that such a policy should be in place, be my guest. From my perspective, many schools have found themselves with less money coming in than what they need to adequately address their actual needs. Hence for someone to come in and order a school to take on additional expenses with no additional revenue is rather absurd.

So, of the proffered solutions, the flat, across-the-budget haircut to locate enough money to support security improvements seems the least-worst approach.

So you suggest cutting perhaps 5% from every section of the budget? Or perhaps a proportional cut of each section relative to the total fraction of the budget it represents?

What do you do then next year when all your armed guards want raises and you still don't have more money coming in?

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43364021)

What do you do then next year when all your armed guards want raises and you still don't have more money coming in?

I'm suggesting that, instead of a situation where citizens are passive, and expect that they cry in the small child fashion, and resources just appear, more citizens get actively involved. Maybe the security is required. Maybe it is not. But people absolutely have to:
- engage
- accept that absolutely no amount of rights-stripping, regulation, and Orwellian rectal sunshine is going to preclude tragedies
- accept that we can't have everything at once
- learn to reject political candidates who somehow pretend that the present, idiotic course is viable.
I, for one, am viewing public schooling as an idea whose time has passed, and plan to do alternate things for my offspring.

Re:I've never followed the logic (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43368849)

Maybe the security is required. Maybe it is not.

My point is that the NRA has dictated that armed security IS absolutely required. And the NRA gets what they want.

- accept that absolutely no amount of rights-stripping, regulation, and Orwellian rectal sunshine is going to preclude tragedies

Some people would say that adding armed guards to a school is a stripping of rights. Many people would prefer their children learn in a non-prison environment.

I, for one, am viewing public schooling as an idea whose time has passed, and plan to do alternate things for my offspring.

You do have the right to see your children educated in whichever way you wish. It is possible that the developed world as we know it, with its overwhelming support of public schooling, has it all wrong.

Now, if you are advocating for home schooling (and I admit this is an if on its own, you could well have a different idea in mind that you have not yet disclosed) and you view security as being an advantage it offers over public schooling, I would like to point out that you still could be attacked by someone while giving instruction. Just because you have a weapon on your person doesn't mean you will be adequately prepared for a potential attacker.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43369227)

Just because you have a weapon on your person doesn't mean you will be adequately prepared for a potential attacker.

Yep [king5.com] ...

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43374939)

My point is that the NRA has dictated that armed security IS absolutely required. And the NRA gets what they want.

The NRA's goal, AFAICT, is to ensure that "shall not be infringed" remains as true as possible. Despite the 24/7/365 efforts of the worldwide anti-liberty movement to render a formerly free people as docile and fearful as possible. In a way, the entire economy is being destroyed by Progressive, Keynesian economics anyway, and the NRA is mostly a rearguard action as it is.

Many people would prefer their children learn in a non-prison environment.

Indeed, these people are called "homeschoolers".

You do have the right to see your children educated in whichever way you wish.

Quite a few people don't see it that way, and would consider my efforts to teach classical morals, values, truth, and the idea that form follows function with respect to reproductive organs as some kind of antiquated H8 program.

I would like to point out that you still could be attacked by someone while giving instruction. Just because you have a weapon on your person doesn't mean you will be adequately prepared for a potential attacker.

Quick question that cuts to the heart of the discussion: do attackers (a) go for easy targets, or (b) harder targets?
Follow up question: do attackers (a) follow the law, or (b) disregard the law?
Bonus: as society dissolves into Progressive chaos, is it smarter to be (a) an easy target, or (b) a harder one?

Re:I've never followed the logic (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43375541)

The NRA's goal, AFAICT, is to ensure that "shall not be infringed" remains as true as possible.

From my perspective it seems that the NRA is most concerned with selling guns, gun accessories, and the gun culture. If those went away, then their membership would likely deteriorate rather quickly.

the 24/7/365 efforts of the worldwide anti-liberty movement to render a formerly free people as docile and fearful as possible

It seems to me that the NRA profits mightily off of fear. They want to encourage people to take up arms on their own in preparation for any of a number of threats - some real and some imagined.

In a way, the entire economy is being destroyed by Progressive, Keynesian economics anyway, and the NRA is mostly a rearguard action as it is.

The economy and the entire political system in this country has only marched continually further to the right over the past few decades. In the 1980s the GOP regarded Reagan as being essentially the conservative second coming, and now we have a president from the other party who is demonstrably more conservative than Reagan in every measurable aspect (pure imagination is, of course, not measurable).

Many people would prefer their children learn in a non-prison environment.

Indeed, these people are called "homeschoolers".

While the NRA is telling us otherwise, it is perfectly possible to have a public school that is not a prison with armed guards.

You do have the right to see your children educated in whichever way you wish.

Quite a few people don't see it that way, and would consider my efforts to teach classical morals, values, truth, and the idea that form follows function with respect to reproductive organs as some kind of antiquated H8 program.

If you feel that your faith should be an important aspect of your childrens' education, you are free to see that it is such. However if you teach them that the book of Genesis is the factual and historical account of how the world came to be, you ought not be surprised when they cannot find a job in science or gain admission to a highly regarded university.

Quick question that cuts to the heart of the discussion: do attackers (a) go for easy targets, or (b) harder targets?

There is no single answer to that, unless you want to more specifically define "attackers". There have been a number of attempts at US presidents over the years [wikipedia.org] , including quite a few that came after the last well-known attempt to kill Reagan. There may be "harder targets" than the president, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Hence, some attackers go to "easy targets" while others go for "harder targets".

Follow up question: do attackers (a) follow the law, or (b) disregard the law?

Is that your rationale for living in a constant state of fear?

Bonus: as society dissolves into Progressive chaos

Since you capitalized the P, I presume you are trying to pin this chaos on a specific party. Based on your writing history I'm rather confident in expecting that specific party is not the one you affiliate yourself with. Being as the party (between the two main parties in US politics) that you do affiliate yourself mostly with has had the reigns of power essentially uninterrupted for some time now (by way of driving their agenda through the system regardless of who is at 1600 Pennsylvania Av) I'm a little puzzled how you can possibly blame the other party. But go on...

is it smarter to be (a) an easy target, or (b) a harder one?

There are multiple ways that one could make oneself a "harder" target. Carrying a semi-automatic weapon on your person at all times is not necessarily the most effective way to do that. Similarly surrounding yourself with people carrying such weapons might not be, either. Both of those approaches are effective ways to spend money quickly, however.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43377495)

From my perspective it seems that the NRA is most concerned with selling guns, gun accessories, and the gun culture. If those went away, then their membership would likely deteriorate rather quickly.

Constitution? History? You are aware that totalitarian regimes seek to disarm people as readily as they control the media? If neither of those matter, what about Gun Owners of America? [gunowners.org] . The NRA by no means has a lock on all pro-liberty Americans.

It seems to me that the NRA profits mightily off of fear. They want to encourage people to take up arms on their own in preparation for any of a number of threats - some real and some imagined.

The unrepentant, rampant idiocy of the gungrabbers is as bad on the 2nd Amendment as it is on, well, everything else. If anything, the focus on maturity, safety, and responsibility afforded by the NRA deserves more kudos than left-wing fear-mongering.

The economy and the entire political system in this country has only marched continually further to the right over the past few decades. In the 1980s the GOP regarded Reagan as being essentially the conservative second coming, and now we have a president from the other party who is demonstrably more conservative than Reagan in every measurable aspect (pure imagination is, of course, not measurable).

Are you veering back into troll mode? I cannot fathom how doubling the national debt, steadfastly refusing to pass reasonable budgets, turning the Sequestration that the W.H. demanded into a national autoflagellation exercise can possibly be confused with sane, adult governance of the Democrat or Republican flavor.

While the NRA is telling us otherwise, it is perfectly possible to have a public school that is not a prison with armed guards.

Then, by all mensa, have one! Why are you empowering the NRA with quasi-legislative veto power over traditional schools?

If you feel that your faith should be an important aspect of your childrens' education, you are free to see that it is such. However if you teach them that the book of Genesis is the factual and historical account of how the world came to be, you ought not be surprised when they cannot find a job in science or gain admission to a highly regarded university.

In particular, I don't regard the Hebrew 'yom' as referring to a single rotation of the planet. If we have to get into proof texting (and I yawn at such) that's my line.

There is no single answer to that, unless you want to more specifically define "attackers". There have been a number of attempts at US presidents over the years, including quite a few that came after the last well-known attempt to kill Reagan. There may be "harder targets" than the president, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Hence, some attackers go to "easy targets" while others go for "harder targets".

Fair enough, but you're focusing on a tiny subset at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the cases. And cherry picking is what people do in this kind of discussion--I'm not claiming to be above such. Having said that, let me help you: the horrific body counts are found where the easy targets are.

Follow up question: do attackers (a) follow the law, or (b) disregard the law?

Is that your rationale for living in a constant state of fear?

Only if you call sane, rational analysis a 'state of fear'. I'd contend that the media is attempting to generate the state of fear, as a means of tricking stupid people into trading liberty for a faux, legislative security that proves 'literally' paper-thin when the next madman comes along. This is underscored by the lone-hand-clapping style of the reporting. You never, EVER hear stories about a madman or rapist wanting to go on a spree, and getting stopped by an armed citizen. Because that doesn't fit the narrative [pjmedia.com] .

Since you capitalized the P, I presume you are trying to pin this chaos on a specific party. Based on your writing history I'm rather confident in expecting that specific party is not the one you affiliate yourself with. Being as the party (between the two main parties in US politics) that you do affiliate yourself mostly with has had the reigns of power essentially uninterrupted for some time now (by way of driving their agenda through the system regardless of who is at 1600 Pennsylvania Av) I'm a little puzzled how you can possibly blame the other party. But go on...

You're always out to make the Ruling Class/Citizen struggle into a partisan one, aren't you? I suppose you're consistent in that regard.

There are multiple ways that one could make oneself a "harder" target. Carrying a semi-automatic weapon on your person at all times is not necessarily the most effective way to do that. Similarly surrounding yourself with people carrying such weapons might not be, either. Both of those approaches are effective ways to spend money quickly, however.

Can I tell you something? While I did carry a 9mm while deployed in a war zone, I don't own such here at home. While the gibbering Progressive commitment to foolishness afoot today DOES make the notion of carrying something (I'm actually an M1911A kinda guy) more interesting, I haven't felt like parting with the money. Yet.
I'm not even an actual NRA member at the moment, though I have been in the past.
But these Godless Commies are cockroach-like in their tenacious efforts to destroy individual liberty and turn the world into a vast Orwellian ant heap. I may yet feel the need to go beyond defending my natural- and Constitutional rights, and set about executing those rights.

Re:I've never followed the logic (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43378163)

You are aware that totalitarian regimes seek to disarm people as readily as they control the media?

And if we had a totalitarian regime I might be concerned. There is no evidence whatsoever that the current presidential administration seeks to disarm people.

The NRA by no means has a lock on all pro-liberty Americans.

You're 100% correct on that, in part as not all pro-liberty Americans want to see more guns.

The unrepentant, rampant idiocy of the gungrabbers

Please elaborate on who you see as "gungrabbers". In particular, if you place me or the current POTUS in this group, please provide rationale and references. Just because people on conservative web sites repeat mantras and conspiracy theories doesn't mean that what they state is somehow factual.

If anything, the focus on maturity, safety, and responsibility afforded by the NRA deserves more kudos than left-wing fear-mongering.

The NRA statement that this JE is referencing is all about fear-mongering. They are seeking to scare us into bringing more guns into schools in particular.

I cannot fathom how doubling the national debt

The national debt increased under Reagan.

steadfastly refusing to pass reasonable budgets,

Obama has proposed budgets which have been promptly refused by the house.

turning the Sequestration that the W.H. demanded into a national autoflagellation exercise

The sequester was passed by the congress [wikipedia.org] , they could have refused it. They have since refused to act to prevent it.

Why are you empowering the NRA with quasi-legislative veto power over traditional schools?

I didn't give them this power, but congress did. Do not mistake the NRA proposal as the start of a discussion, the NRA called the news conference to dictate legislation. The NRA has immense power over the elected legislators in DC and this will be a bill soon.

Fair enough, but you're focusing on a tiny subset at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the cases. And cherry picking is what people do in this kind of discussion--I'm not claiming to be above such. Having said that, let me help you: the horrific body counts are found where the easy targets are.

That depends on which cherries you want to pick. The majority of gun deaths in this country do not occur in massacres, they occur in homes and other situations involving very few people in one place. You are much more likely to be killed by your partner than you are to be killed by someone you don't know. Preparing for a massacre event is as sensible as preparing for a terrorist attack, your odds of being killed by either are similar.

Only if you call sane, rational analysis a 'state of fear'

For the reason I just stated - amongst others - the NRA endorses people living in a state of fear. It brings more money into their organization, and of course with it more power.

ou never, EVER hear stories about a madman or rapist wanting to go on a spree, and getting stopped by an armed citizen. Because that doesn't fit the narrative.

Dead people don't get to tell much of their side about a plan for a "spree".

You're always out to make the Ruling Class/Citizen struggle into a partisan one, aren't you

I just wanted to make sure I knew what you were after with your label of "Progressive" - particularly to ensure it wasn't a capitalization error. It appears I was right that it was not an error but rather indeed an attempt from you to pin a situation on a particular political movement.

But these Godless Commies are cockroach-like in their tenacious efforts to destroy individual liberty and turn the world into a vast Orwellian ant heap.

If you succeed in finding any "godless commies" in elected federal office, please let me know.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43380135)

You are aware that totalitarian regimes seek to disarm people as readily as they control the media?

And if we had a totalitarian regime I might be concerned. There is no evidence whatsoever that the current presidential administration seeks to disarm people.

You're quite correct. The precise quote is "President Barack Obama is vowing to use "whatever power this office holds" to safeguard the nation's children [timesdispatch.com] ". This is due to the magical nature of the phrase "safeguard the nation's children". It's not that I think the man a liar. Rather, I think his Olympian view so far above truth mere mortal concerns such as the Constitution and unintended consequences remain beneath the man.

The NRA by no means has a lock on all pro-liberty Americans.

You're 100% correct on that, in part as not all pro-liberty Americans want to see more guns.

And what difference, at this point, does it make?

The unrepentant, rampant idiocy of the gungrabbers

Please elaborate on who you see as "gungrabbers". In particular, if you place me or the current POTUS in this group, please provide rationale and references. Just because people on conservative web sites repeat mantras and conspiracy theories doesn't mean that what they state is somehow factual.

How do you want the list sorted? Cuomo, Bloomberg, and Feinstein for starters. Have you paid no attention to the news in CO or CT?

If anything, the focus on maturity, safety, and responsibility afforded by the NRA deserves more kudos than left-wing fear-mongering.

The NRA statement that this JE is referencing is all about fear-mongering. They are seeking to scare us into bringing more guns into schools in particular.

The most negative I can get about the NRA is that they've answered the mainstream media in kind.

I cannot fathom how doubling the national debt

The national debt increased under Reagan.

Great video discussion here [youtube.com] . Your rebuttal here is unhelpful.

steadfastly refusing to pass reasonable budgets,

Obama has proposed budgets which have been promptly refused by the house.

BHO rolled a frickin' doughnut in the Senate in 2012 [thehill.com] , and he's almost done blowing off doing his job for the 2014 budget [thehill.com] which certainly can do no worse. But please: keep defending this loser. It makes your brain less dense.

turning the Sequestration that the W.H. demanded into a national autoflagellation exercise

The sequester was passed by the congress [wikipedia.org] , they could have refused it. They have since refused to act to prevent it.

Yeah, now, Obama threatened to veto any effort to do away with sequestration [sweetness-light.com] . So, the debacle was a bi-partisan flail. Aren't was always against gridlock in DC? Why are you calling for more gridlock? Hint: it's all farce, anyway.

Why are you empowering the NRA with quasi-legislative veto power over traditional schools?

I didn't give them this power, but congress did. Do not mistake the NRA proposal as the start of a discussion, the NRA called the news conference to dictate legislation. The NRA has immense power over the elected legislators in DC and this will be a bill soon.

So, are you
(a) Arguing against lobbying?
(b) Implying there is some disconnect between the NRA and a significant chunk of public opinion?
(c) Implying there is some illegal level of influence being exerted here?

Fair enough, but you're focusing on a tiny subset at the expense of the overwhelming majority of the cases. And cherry picking is what people do in this kind of discussion--I'm not claiming to be above such. Having said that, let me help you: the horrific body counts are found where the easy targets are.

That depends on which cherries you want to pick. The majority of gun deaths in this country do not occur in massacres, they occur in homes and other situations involving very few people in one place. You are much more likely to be killed by your partner than you are to be killed by someone you don't know. Preparing for a massacre event is as sensible as preparing for a terrorist attack, your odds of being killed by either are similar.

Now, wait just a minute. This entire debate, including the NRA press conference in your JE, has to do with the fallout from the Newtown, CT tragedy. A sicko did something unspeakable, and we've had a four month media/legislative/administration press to drive through whatever laughably idiotic [hotair.com] legislation they thought the people could be browbeaten into accepting. mendouchious twatwaffelry [twitter.com] , indeed.

Only if you call sane, rational analysis a 'state of fear'

For the reason I just stated - amongst others - the NRA endorses people living in a state of fear. It brings more money into their organization, and of course with it more power.

So, you're saying liberty is fear? I do harbor concern for the idiocy of our government, which seems so impervious to common-sense budgeting, demographics, history, etc. Yet they want to regulate my health, take away rights ensconced in a Constitution written by far more honorable people, all in the name of Holy Progress.

ou never, EVER hear stories about a madman or rapist wanting to go on a spree, and getting stopped by an armed citizen. Because that doesn't fit the narrative.

Dead people don't get to tell much of their side about a plan for a "spree".

Are you ignoring my point about the lack of balance in the reporting, or was it phrased too subtly?

You're always out to make the Ruling Class/Citizen struggle into a partisan one, aren't you

I just wanted to make sure I knew what you were after with your label of "Progressive" - particularly to ensure it wasn't a capitalization error. It appears I was right that it was not an error but rather indeed an attempt from you to pin a situation on a particular political movement.

No, you said "Since you capitalized the P, I presume you are trying to pin this chaos on a specific party. Based on your writing history I'm rather confident in expecting that specific party is not the one you affiliate yourself with." You were going partisan.

But these Godless Commies are cockroach-like in their tenacious efforts to destroy individual liberty and turn the world into a vast Orwellian ant heap.

If you succeed in finding any "godless commies" in elected federal office, please let me know.

Yeah, the repartee is too lengthy to attempt sardonic humor. If you like, you can substitute "totalitarian" for "godless commies". The argument ultimately arrives at Locke and Rousseau. One either subscribes to the notion of individuals preceding the state, or a divine state from which all rights trickle down. I'm totally in the former camp.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43380147)

And, I botched the double-quoting. Sorry.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43399557)

And, I botched the double-quoting. Sorry.

I've made the same mistake before myself. It does, however, make your post slightly more difficult to read, so I'll try to get back to it later.

It would be nice if slashdot comments had a "grace period" - say maybe 5 minutes or so - to make edits to fix things like that. I know, that is what the preview button is for, but sometimes we get a little too certain of our tags to use it.

I see some joker is down-moderating my comments here, too. Some people never learn, I guess.

Re:I've never followed the logic (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43408007)

I had hit 'Submit' instead of 'Continue Editing'.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?