koheesti

Armed Guards for Returning Sandy Hook Students

By Susan Jones

January 3, 2013

(CNSNews.com) - When children from Sandy Hook Elementary school return to class in neighboring Monroe, Conn. today, they'll be entering "the safest school in America," according to the Associated Press.

"Law enforcement officers have been guarding the new school, and by the reckoning of police, it is 'the safest school in America,'" the AP reported Thursday.

"I think right now it has to be the safest school in America," Monroe police Lt. Keith White was quoted as saying.

http://cnsnews.com/n...y-hook-students

I'm sorry but I simply cannot see how a school for primary school children that has armed guards on its premises is 'the safest school in America'. Surely the safest school in America would be a school that didn't required armed guards on its premises at all?

Like the ones the rich, famous, politicians and celebrities send their kids to?

As a right winger, I don't know of any that speak ill of Hillary nowadays. Of course, up until he was nominated the Republican candidate for President in 2008, John McCain was the left's darling, then he was immediately attacked with a nasty, untrue rumor of an affair after becoming the candidate. Soooooo, while Hillary currently enjoys a high approval rate among conservatives (compared to the current leader, she's simply amazing) once she is a candidate, all bets are most likely off. In any case, her health will be a major issue in 2016. mostly from challengers in her own party.

There certainly was an uproar - 'she won't testify' etc etc, same as with Clinton now . . . Rice did and Clinton will, quite simple - but I doubt anything she says will meet with your - or your tinfoil hat - brigade's approval.

I don't remember there being one. Do you have a link to prove your assertion? It's pretty easy to find links about "uproars" over Petraeus not testifying, or Hillary not testifying but I couldn't find one (maybe because one doesn't exist?).

Now, about dips getting killed and my not caring . . . here's one for you; my uncle, father, bother and sister-in law were/are diplomats and for you to say something as simply ludicrous as that shows you up for the one-eyed bigot you clearly are. They were/are all non-appointees, in other words career diplomats and are as shaken up about this as anyone else but they certainly do not believe that there is a conspiracy of any kind revolving around this.

The state department has hundreds of missions overseas, thousands and thousands of employees. I was born in Thailand (made in Germany), my eldest brother was born in Nigeria (made in Nigeria) and my middle brother was born in Tanzania (made in the US).

Perhaps, just perhaps you should look at the topic with a bit of distance to see and understand the picture instead of politicising it for your own convenience

Whether it is true or not that you have family members who were diplomats is totally irrelevant. To think that adds weight to your own opinion is ridiculous. I'm actually living in the residence of a career diplomat as I type this...I guess that makes my opinion pretty heavy, eh? There are plenty of diplomats both current and former who smell something fishy about this whole thing just as there are who put on a public face that it is all in a day's work and no one's fault.

I'm certain your opinion is based solely on one thing...your support of the admin who lied about it. Step back and try some objective thinking instead of tossing around "bigot" and "tin-foil hat". Or try this, imagine it happened under the Bush Admin..OMFG! The New York Times would have devoted months of front pages and special full-color inserts to it then.

Before Hillary's accident and blood clot, she had spent weeks avoiding appearing before the committee on Benghazi. Personally, I think it is because of loyalty to the Democratic Party and the last thing she wanted to do was testify under oath which would have been damning for the current administration and as therefore the Democrats in general. She has already assumed full-responsibility so her testimony can't really hurt her much. But for the prez it would be devastating.

Submaniac:

Haha, cool your jets. I never read past about sentence 2 or 3 of any post.

Reread Scalia's opinion in Heller. You are seriously misinterpreting what he said in that opinion . . . Haha, this is a prime example why lay people should never attempt to practice law by representing themselves.

I take it Scalia got his point across in 3 sentences?

Dr. Gupta has not seen Mrs. Clinton's medical records nor tests. Although anti coagulants are not the usual treatment for concussion related blood clots, they are indeed used for the type of injury sustained by Mrs. Clinton. The state department released a very clear statement;

the Secretary experienced a blood clot “between the brain and the skull behind the right ear.”

Physicians that deal with such injuries see nothing unusual with the treatment;

If the clot occurs in the space between the brain and the skull, says Dr. David Hovda, director of the University of California Los Angeles Brain Injury Research Center, the concern would be ensuring that any clogged vessels are unobstructed so blood that has circulated through the brain and is on its way back to the heart is flowing freely. In older patients, this space is slightly more expansive than that among younger people, since the brain tends to shrink gradually with age.

Schwamm, who has not treated Clinton but has treated patients with concussions and clots, says there are two other, relatively rare scenarios in which the concussion itself might lead to a need for blood thinners. Clinton apparently hit her head after a fall while dehydrated from a stomach virus, and if her head were twisted on impact, small tears, or dissections, might have shredded the arteries that feed blood to the brain, leading to clots. Blockages in these arteries can prevent the brain from receiving the oxygen-rich blood it needs, leading to a stroke, so doctors often use blood thinning drugs to prevent clots from growing. The other possibility, Schwamm says, is that the clot formed in the veins that drain blood from the brain, so the danger of having that flow interrupted and backing up in the brain would also require treatment with anticoagulants.

And this;

In such cases, says , doctors turn to blood thinning medications to ensure that blood flow out of the brain is not interrupted; such obstruction can cause permanent swelling and damage to brain tissue.- Dr. Goeff Manley, professor of neurological surgery at University of California San Francisco

Seriously, can't you give your obsession with a coverup conspiracy a rest?

In short, Dr. Gupta's opinion is to be discounted because he hasn't seen Hillary's medical records or tests, but at the same time we are supposed to believe Dr. Manley and Dr. Hovda even though they probably haven't seen them either.

]

Rice contributed nothing to shed light on the situation. and her testimony created more questions than answers. As Obama said, she knows nothing.

So, first this uproar about Rice not testifying, which was never in doubt - then she did testify and people like you cry foul when nothing crops up that you can sink your fangs into or that fits into your snug 'views' . . . now it's Clinton's turn.

Uproar that she won't testify and pretending to be ill . . . oh, a bloodclot int he brain? What a treacherous cop-out!!!! Uproar!

There was no "uproar about Rice not testifying". You just made it up because you put far more importance on protecting the present admin's tangled web of lives surrounding Benghazi than on the lives of our (USA's) ambassador and three others. Undoubtedly, you figure that they are dead, Obama won, there is nothing to gain from the truth coming out so it is best to sweep it under the rug and move on.

I have zero problem with drone strikes killing suspected terrorists. I wouldn't mind a little more info in the reporting as to what makes them suspected in the first place though.

I hope Hillary recovers, I really do. I did not like her one bit as First Lady. I can understand why Bill would cheat on her. Snaking into a Senate seat in New York where she never lived was typical. BUT...since then I think she has been one of the better statesmen/women we've had. Unlike some, she has put in the time and had years of experience in gov't and was infinitely more deserving for the nomination in 2008.

That said, "naive" is the polite word to describe people who didn't see anything suspicious in her suddenly having an illness and concussion right before she was to testify. A condition so bad she never even needed to go to the hospital? It appears now that maybe she should have gone to the hospital in the first place. That is IF the clot is even connected to the mystery concussion. As someone has already posted, she has traveled one heckuva lot and that could be the real cause. If it is related, her doctors should be out of work by tomorrow morning.

In any case, I wish her well. My brother died from a blood clot last year that had gone undetected. Hillary at least has a better chance.

Suppose you had a house with 4 little kids who like to play outside. You look at the map and see the houses on the east end of the street all have guns, and the houses on the west end don't have them (not registered, anyway). Which end of the street would you recommend your kids play on?

I would want them playing in the neighborhood where the criminals weren't the only ones with guns. But more importantly than a map of gun owners, I'd want to study a map of people with traffic tickets and accidents. Few guns ever leave the owners house while cars are driven daily and kill even more people in America than guns. So from a statistical and common sense point of view, a person should be more concerned about their children playing on a street where poor drivers live, not law-abiding gun owners.

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

You betcha!!

Me, too. Fortunately, I lived in an area of the country where guns are very common so I never worried about some nut trying to shoot up the place.

The thing that I find most irritating, is how all those "pro- gunners", those law abiding citizens, always only pick the laws, regulations and freedoms, that are convenient for them and their POV.

I absolutely think this newspaper- article is stupid and senseless and not one bit constructive!

It's rubbish, it proves nothing and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

At the same time, I also believe, that publishing the photos, names and adresses of pedophiles is absolutely the same thing.

Just imagine what harm you are doing, if a guy is fighting his "demon" and doing well...and you stigmatize him again and again!

Freedom of speech?

More a paranoid action due to a false feeling of security.

But ask right-wing America about that, what do you get?

"I don't want these monsters to live among us!"

Those evil right wing Americans! Good luck finding a left wing family with small children in any country who have no problem having pedophiles as neighbors.

This thread has turned into not a thread concerning a newspapers publication

of who owns guns but a thread that bashes the US because of it's gun laws.

Let's get this straight from my POV...The USA has it's gun laws. The rest

of the world has theirs. That's all there is to it. If you non Americans don't like

the US gun laws that's your problem but don't come screaming to the US

if some other nation invades you and ask the US for help because you cannot

defend yourselves. They're America's laws...and nobody else's...regardless

of what the rest of the world thinks or expounds.

Aren't American citizens ardent supporters of free speech no matter how much you may disagree with a POV? To link criticism of US gun laws with refuting international defense alliances is OTP, don't you think? Or are you just having some fun on a lazy afternoon...

All "free speech" means is that you can say what you want and the government will not throw you in jail. You know, like most other countries in the world at one time or another. There are certainly mere words that if mentioned in Thailand will land you in jail in a heartbeat if heard by gov't authorities. The same was true for England at the time the US Constitution was written - and maybe to some extent still today. The Canadian gov't will lock you up for something their officials deem offensive.

Exercising free speech won't land you in jail (in the USA anyway) but that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences. So sunshine51 is correct and I agree, whine about our gun laws but if you can't defend yourselves, please don't look to us for help. Instead, these countries should use their arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude as a shield against outside aggression and see how far that gets them.

The newspaper might have exercised free speech in printing what they did and the editors will not be thrown in jail for it. Now they still have to face the consequences if any.

Really, they should grow up.

She will have to testify sooner or later if required, they want America to function without a secretary of state until she does?

They should have learned from the last election that acting like a bunch of squealing little schoolgirls can cost you an election.

I agree, republicans are a bunch of babies, when Clinton was in office the republicans spent about 6 years doing nothing but trying to get him impeached. Then when 911 happened they did nothing but call Americans that didn't believe in attacking Iraq un-American. Then while there economic policies destroyed a budget surplus, they spent most of bush's term blaming the problem on the Democrats. Then during Obama's first term they did noting except disseminate inaccurate information and twisted truths. No, don't expect much from republicans expect to work hard to let the richest get richer.

Talk about inaccurate information and twisted truths.

Why is it that among Western democratic countries US citizens believe they need to be armed to protect themselves against their government and attempt to block all controls to access semi/automatic weapons, limits on ammunition purchases and magazine capacity.

Hmmm, are you saying gun ownership is wrong? It's a constitutional right, so is neither legally nor morally wrong.

What an ignorant statement. Owning a slave was perfectly legal under the US constitution long after the "Bill of Rights" was enacted.

I know the 2nd Amendment was about the Right to Bear Arms. Which Amendment was about the Right to Own Slaves?

Society has failed when your schools need armed guards.

Agreed. We've had guns around for longer than anyone here has been alive but only in recent decades have we had such a high amount of mass killings and attacks. Society has certainly failed. Someone should post an interactive map of single-family homes because the disintegration of the two-parent household is probably the greatest factors behind this failure.

I'd like one of you who is against gun ownership to rationally articulate your plan on how to remove 300,000,000 guns from the hands of Americans.

Please, in a thousand words or less, tell us.

I see many people and organizations (the Economist most recently, advocating repealling the 2nd amendment) spouting off against guns, rabidly in many cases, but no one has set forth a plan on how to remove all those guns from private hands.

Anyone here volunteering to go door-to-door?

Four words:

Australian gun buyback programme

http://en.wikipedia....am#In_Australia

You have to look at the source of this "news". Not known for balanced reporting, just for whipping their main demographic into a frenzy. Trust me, it's not difficult either.

If the school does NOT have armed guards, please post a link to support your attack on the source.

Although you may not be in favor of it...but you see the difference between the President or his daughter and "normal" people, don't you?

The school where the President sends his kids didn't just start having armed guards because of his kids, they have always been there. In fact, the daughters have their own Secret Service detail.

Newtown shows that regular children need protection, not just the children of the privileged.

Also, if the children of the famous and privileged are at risk, WHY has there never been an attack on them in their schools? It's just BS to say that they aren't safe, isn't it?

So it's OK to publish this information because some people don't want their children playing in or near a house with guns? Or that they believe any gun owner is a potential murderer? Well, a lot of people wouldn't want their kids playing in or near a house with people in it who promote a behavior that goes against the teachings of their religion and/or could be a health risk. So it's probably a good idea for someone to publish an interactive map showing where they live. I'm sure that would be welcome by everyone, eh? If not that, then DEFINITELY please publish a list of people on certain medications or with a history of mental health issues. Those people are crazy and dangerous.

SCHOOL OBAMA'S DAUGHTERS ATTEND HAS 11 ARMED GUARDS

Typical, politicians fighting against something for the general public that they themselves require. Whether it is their health care coverage, ability to invest a portion of social security, unparalleled pension plan and now...armed guards at their private schools. This Stidwell school doesn't have armed guards just because the President sends his daughters there, they are always there. The parents believe they themselves are so special & privileged that their children need extra protection. Maybe there is some truth to that. But the recent school massacre shows ALL school children are at risk. Only now that some have called for armed guards at these schools NOT for the children of the privileged, do these hypocritical politicians scoff at armed guards in schools.

Your costs might be too low. Some of those schools have more than one building and certainly most Universities do. Now, figure in health insurance, and other related employment costs and it might be wise to get them a good life insurance policy.

Universities are already protected. So are a lot of schools in big cities.

Thoughtful commentators point out that yes, the gun laws in the US do need tightening but that will not solve the problem. Other contributing factors are a lack of adequate mental health care as well as movies and games that offer gratuitous violence. In reality, if you were to objectively rank the causes, mental health would be number one, movies, games and a general increased acceptance of the horrible would be number 2 and choice of weapons would be number three. However, simplifying the argument to only guns is politically easier and allows the left to continue to portray the right as inhuman, unfeeling baby killers (oh wait, it's the left that thinks it's okay to kill babies, but they call it empowering women so that makes it okay).

In the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook, the appropriate response is deep sorrow, hugging your own children that much tighter and encouraging thoughtful dialog. Neither the NRA response nor the cries for banning guns from the left fall into the category of thoughtful or appropriate.

Doesn't matter how many mentally ill people are out there. If they can't obtain a tool, i.e. a semi-automatic weapon, that enables them to commit mass murder, they don't pose a threat like they do now. Momma Lanza's gun didn't protect her, now did they?

Newtwon didn't have half as many dead as the biggest school massacre in US history back in 1927 when some angry nut blew up a school killing 45 and injuring 58. Ironically, if he had used a gun he would have killed and injured far fewer people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Brother this morning who is FBI agent admitted that even he by himself may not be able to take down a whack job with body armor an AR-15 storming a school with just a pistol unless had a 5.70. FBI are trained to deal with situation with teams of four and sone old retired cop, which NRA, recommended with a pistol not going to stop someone like Lanza.

They may not be a good enough aim to stop them but they can definitely distract and slow the gunman down while teachers take children to safety.