National Rifle Association Calls For Armed Guards In U S Schools

[Chicog]

I'm sure the NRA will be apoplectic with indignation, but the CiC has spoken and I think he will have public support for the measures highlighted below. I expect a new topic will appear here in the morning.

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month. With relatives of some of the 20 children killedin the Connecticut rampage looking on, Obama signed 23 executive actions that don't require congressional approval that he said would strengthen background checks and expand safety programs in schools.

He also called on Congress to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, to restrict ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds, and to require a background check on anyone buying a gun, whether at a store or in a private sale at an auction or convention.

The full plan is here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Edited January 16, 2013 by Chicog

[NeverSure]

Not to worry. Senator Schumer (D-NY) has that all covered. He's asked gun dealers not to sell any more guns while Congress works out the gun control legislation.

I hear it from a reliable source he is going to next ask Baskin-Robbins to stop selling ice cream until the US obesity problem is under control.

Guess what! Schumer is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

-snip-

I keep saying that the hoopla over guns is emotional and not rational. If the real concern was death, the indeed Baskin-Robbins would be up for banning.

Some 11,000 people die each year in the US from gun killings. That doesn't mention that many of them are gang on gang and drug related killings. Link

The US Government Center for Disease Control (CDC) says that 115,000 people die each year from obesity. Link

So IF the real concern was really about deaths, then Schumer and Obummer would indeed be focused on the evil sellers of junk food!!

But it's really about controlling the sheeple. People can't protect themselves, even against government if necessary with an ice cream cone.

How many ice cream caused deaths made the news last year? No, the lamestream media is busy whipping up the emotions about ownership of guns by law abiding citizens.

One of these days or years the Eurozone might have a financial collapse, and someone or some group would rise up and offer to save it. Then it would all come under a dictatorship because he who has the gold makes the rules. This dictatorship will have it easy compared to Hitler. Hitler had to disarm the population. Europeans for the most part have already gone under the ether. They've had it too good for too long and have forgotten history.

[Scott]

I think we can drop the comparison with ice cream. Ice cream does not cause death, it is a contributing factor, but not a cause. A fatal gun shot wound is usually the cause of death.

[submaniac]

I agree with you wholeheartedly neversure. If we are worried about deaths lets ban alcohol. It kills more per year than guns.

[Scott]

A series of off-topic posts has been removed. Please stay on topic.

[F430murci]

Okay, I just saw the NRA commercial about armed guards in school because Ovama's children is protected by armed guards and he is an eliteist.

I am sorry, I just cannot see how any reasonable person could watch that and not roll their eyes. Look, I get people thinking they have a right to have their guns and etc. Just say that, but that commercial really make the oro gun people look completely nutty.

Kind of nutty like this:

http://www.thesuperficial.com/ted-nugent-threatened-to-kill-obama-again-04-2012

[simple1]

Deleted post snipped....

---------------------------------------

"They" do not want to listen. each & every interview on US news TV with pro gun always use the reference to some Korean shop owners keeping at bay rioters 20 years ago, plus the tyrannical government argument. Not one wants to even consider any amendment to current gun laws - every item on the list to actions proposed by the Obama administration have been completely rejected by pro gun. Maybe, just maybe, with exception to the universal background check being accepted. Even so, many States, do not provide sufficient data to the NICS, so again many loopholes. Hopefully the universal background check, if passed into law, will make it mandatory for the States to fully comply.

In the meantime their is a petition for which citizens in 50 States are signing up for succession from the USA.

http://www.yourjewis...ages/23888.aspx

Edited January 17, 2013 by craigt3365
removed deleted post

[F430murci]

I agree with you wholeheartedly neversure. If we are worried about deaths lets ban alcohol. It kills more per year than guns.

Seriously guys, I do not think you realize how silly this stuff sounds. Just man up and say I want my guns, I don't abuse the right, and no one should take them away if I don't abuse my right to own.

I heard guy on radio whining tonight about having to register his guns ever five years. How selfish and lazy can one be to worry about such a minor inconvenience.

Stop whining, stop making silly excuses, take some responsibility and try to be less self absorbed.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[chuckd]

Just have a guess!

"They" do not want to listen. each & every interview on US news TV with pro gun always use the reference to some Korean shop owners keeping at bay rioters 20 years ago, plus the tyrannical government argument. Not one wants to even consider any amendment to current gun laws - every item on the list to actions proposed by the Obama administration have been completely rejected by pro gun. Maybe, just maybe, with exception to the universal background check being accepted. Even so, many States, do not provide sufficient data to the NICS, so again many loopholes. Hopefully the universal background check, if passed into law, will make it mandatory for the States to fully comply.

In the meantime their is a petition for which citizens in 50 States are signing up for succession from the USA.

http://www.yourjewis...ages/23888.aspx

From your linked article,,,

"Requests from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas residents have accumulated at least 25,000 signatures, the number the Obama administration says it will reward with a review of his staff."

The following article came out in the past day or so. It seems 25,000 signatures is creating too much of a work load for the White House staff so they have now raised the minimum number of signature required to 100,000. I guess the Piers Morgan petition was more than they bargained for.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House now requires ‘We the People’ petitions to have 100,000 signatures for official response

2:05 AM 01/16/2013

Neil Munro

President Barack Obama’s deputies have quadrupled the number of signatures that petitioners on the administration’s “We the People” website must collect to get an official response from the White House, following a series of popular, provocative and disrespectful signature drives by his critics.

Some of the petitions sought approval for states to secede after Obama’s re-election, while others called on the White House to disavow executive orders that restrict gun rights, or to deport CNN’s British-born, progressive host Piers Morgan.

“Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration,” said an early evening Jan. 15 statement from Macon Phillips, the White House’s digital strategy director.

“This new threshold applies only to petitions created from this point forward and is not retroactively applied to ones that already exist.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2IDAcLq2l

So much for responding to the "people".

Edited January 17, 2013 by chuckd

[Chicog]

The following article came out in the past day or so. It seems 25,000 signatures is creating too much of a work load for the White House staff so they have now raised the minimum number of signature required to 100,000. I guess the Piers Morgan petition was more than they bargained for.

Actually I think it's in response to the nutjobs that listen to Alex Jones filing a petition every time he gets enraged with something (which is almost daily).

We have a similar thing in the UK, and it requires 100,000 signatures with a quarter of the population. I think that's about right.

Expecting the government to waste its time (and taxpayers money) on something that interests such a minute proportion of the population (less than 1/100th of one per cent if my calculations are correct) seems very pointless to me. You could probably get enough Yankee fans to sign one if you had a hot enough issue.

25,000 is probably a reasonable number at state level though.

What are e-petitions?

e-petitions are an easy, personal way for you to influence government and Parliament in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in the House of Commons.

[chuckd]

The following article came out in the past day or so. It seems 25,000 signatures is creating too much of a work load for the White House staff so they have now raised the minimum number of signature required to 100,000. I guess the Piers Morgan petition was more than they bargained for.

Actually I think it's in response to the nutjobs that listen to Alex Jones filing a petition every time he gets enraged with something (which is almost daily).

We have a similar thing in the UK, and it requires 100,000 signatures with a quarter of the population. I think that's about right.

Expecting the government to waste its time (and taxpayers money) on something that interests such a minute proportion of the population (less than 1/100th of one per cent if my calculations are correct) seems very pointless to me. You could probably get enough Yankee fans to sign one if you had a hot enough issue.

25,000 is probably a reasonable number at state level though.

What are e-petitions?

e-petitions are an easy, personal way for you to influence government and Parliament in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in the House of Commons.

Not that it is any business of mine what the UK does, can you please explain what this sentence means...

"We have a similar thing in the UK, and it requires 100,000 signatures with a quarter of the population. I think that's about right."

The confusion coming from..."it requires 100,000 signatures with a quarter of the population..."

A quarter of which population?

And for the record, the White House originally started out requiring only 5,000 signatures, than upped it to 25,000 in 2012. I suppose when too many embarrassing petitions come out with 100,000 signatures, the bar will be raised yet again.

[Chicog]

<snip>

A quarter of which population?

And for the record, the White House originally started out requiring only 5,000 signatures, than upped it to 25,000 in 2012. I suppose when too many embarrassing petitions come out with 100,000 signatures, the bar will be raised yet again.

The UK with 70 million is roughly a quarter of the population of the US (315 million).

But in fairness, 100,000 signatures gets you the chance for a debate in Parliament.

I agree with you that the petitions are embarrassing, though. Probably why they are trying to stop people embarrassing themselves.

[Sing_Sling]

<snip>

A quarter of which population?

And for the record, the White House originally started out requiring only 5,000 signatures, than upped it to 25,000 in 2012. I suppose when too many embarrassing petitions come out with 100,000 signatures, the bar will be raised yet again.

The UK with 70 million is roughly a quarter of the population of the US (315 million).

But in fairness, 100,000 signatures gets you the chance for a debate in Parliament.

I agree with you that the petitions are embarrassing, though. Probably why they are trying to stop people embarrassing themselves.

Ah, but the US has surged past the 320 million mark . . .

The problem with the petition idea is that in a population of 300+ million, 25.000 is nothing. You could get a petition going for just about anything and have 25.000 following you.

The secession looneys . . . Not one state could survive by itself - and please don't start quoting how Texas is bigger/gdp etc . . . because these stats don't take into account a lot of spending at the federal level which they would then have to shoulder

It's not Europeans who are the lemmings, it is the Americans and their entitlement attitude. They elected a government - but whenever they disagree with something they rise up and scream impeachment and 'from my cold, dead hands' garbage.

Far too many people are more worried about keeping their guns (is anyone talking of taking them away?) rather than keeping children alive

Anyway, how about a cartoon to bring a smile into this discussion:

[samran]

Okay, I just saw the NRA commercial about armed guards in school because Ovama's children is protected by armed guards and he is an eliteist.

I am sorry, I just cannot see how any reasonable person could watch that and not roll their eyes. Look, I get people thinking they have a right to have their guns and etc. Just say that, but that commercial really make the oro gun people look completely nutty.

Kind of nutty like this:

http://www.thesuperf...a-again-04-2012

I think they are trying to say that the President is getting a little 'uppity'.

And yes, I know what that means.

[koheesti]

I agree with you wholeheartedly neversure. If we are worried about deaths lets ban alcohol. It kills more per year than guns.

Seriously guys, I do not think you realize how silly this stuff sounds. Just man up and say I want my guns, I don't abuse the right, and no one should take them away if I don't abuse my right to own.

I heard guy on radio whining tonight about having to register his guns ever five years. How selfish and lazy can one be to worry about such a minor inconvenience.

Stop whining, stop making silly excuses, take some responsibility and try to be less self absorbed.

On one hand, I think registering a gun should be like registering a car, even to the point of doing it every year and not just ever five years.

On the other hand, that registration information can and has been abused in two ways;

1) Some media outlet publicizes your information for all to see, including criminals,

2) At some point in the future your gun is made illegal and the gov't knows where to come confiscate it (most handguns are semi-automatic so it isn't just "military type assault rifles" the anti-gun lobby are talking about). Making an anti-gun law can be just because some politicians decide to bypass the Constitution - and we are seeing that happen more and more often. So there is a real threat if not tomorrow, then definitely in the not too distant future.

The second point is considered important to some people, a paranoid delusion to others. The first type of people do not believe that government - which is just a collection of (corrupt) politicians and civil servants - is some all-powerful, infallible, magic cure-all for all of society's ills. The second type of people believe that there is nothing to fear from government because they are great at what they do (despite decades, centuries of contrary evidence).

[Chicog]

Okay, I just saw the NRA commercial about armed guards in school because Ovama's children is protected by armed guards and he is an eliteist.

I am sorry, I just cannot see how any reasonable person could watch that and not roll their eyes. Look, I get people thinking they have a right to have their guns and etc. Just say that, but that commercial really make the oro gun people look completely nutty.

Kind of nutty like this:

http://www.thesuperf...a-again-04-2012

I think they are trying to say that the President is getting a little 'uppity'.

And yes, I know what that means.

I think they are trying to make the President look bad, but in the process they are making themselves look quite ridiculous.

Especially when their leader was bleating on about evil video games, and now they've gone and released an NRA shooting "game" for the iPhone!

Doh!

To be fair, NRA: Practice Range can't truly be classified as a violent video game. You're not on a mission to mow down scores of human beings. You're actually shooting at stationary and moving targets as you would at any shooting range.

You start off with simple handguns and rifles, though you can pay extra to use an AK-47 assault rifle or an MK11 sniper rifle.

The NRA is also using the app to spread its message about gun safety. As you move from one scenario to another, the game flashes safety tips for actual gun owners.

But the NRA also squeezes in some of its own "facts" regarding gun ownership, all designed to take some of the heat off the group as more people call for stricter gun laws.

[koheesti]

Okay, I just saw the NRA commercial about armed guards in school because Ovama's children is protected by armed guards and he is an eliteist.

I am sorry, I just cannot see how any reasonable person could watch that and not roll their eyes. Look, I get people thinking they have a right to have their guns and etc. Just say that, but that commercial really make the oro gun people look completely nutty.

Kind of nutty like this:

http://www.thesuperf...a-again-04-2012

I think they are trying to say that the President is getting a little 'uppity'.

And yes, I know what that means.

I think they are trying to make the President look bad, but in the process they are making themselves look quite ridiculous.

Especially when their leader was bleating on about evil video games, and now they've gone and released an NRA shooting "game" for the iPhone!

Doh!

To be fair, NRA: Practice Range can't truly be classified as a violent video game. You're not on a mission to mow down scores of human beings. You're actually shooting at stationary and moving targets as you would at any shooting range.

You start off with simple handguns and rifles, though you can pay extra to use an AK-47 assault rifle or an MK11 sniper rifle.

The NRA is also using the app to spread its message about gun safety. As you move from one scenario to another, the game flashes safety tips for actual gun owners.

But the NRA also squeezes in some of its own "facts" regarding gun ownership, all designed to take some of the heat off the group as more people call for stricter gun laws.

Yeah, well, I've played some of the Call of Duty games and the first level in one of them is passing the target shooting level. Just to teach you how to use the gun. Bo-ring as hell. I don't think the gamers are going to stop firing up baddies in order to shoot targets. UNLESS they offer some sort of financial incentive for scores, whatever.

[Chicog]

Especially when they have to pay extra for the decent mass shooters.

[chuckd]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

[sustento]

2) At some point in the future your gun is made illegal and the gov't knows where to come confiscate it

Surely if guns are made illegal (by a legal process obviously) then law abiding gun owners in the US would be willing to give up their guns. That's what 'law abiding' means - obeying the law.

The second point is considered important to some people, a paranoid delusion to others. The first type of people do not believe that government - which is just a collection of (corrupt) politicians and civil servants - is some all-powerful, infallible, magic cure-all for all of society's ills. The second type of people believe that there is nothing to fear from government because they are great at what they do (despite decades, centuries of contrary evidence).

Then there's the third type of people who rather more realistically believe that government is neither totally corrupt nor knights in shining armour but a mixture of the two together with many good men and women who try to do their best for their country. If you want to see an example of a country without goverment Somalia is a good example.

[endure]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

Not quite true. I'm still happier to love in a country where guns are restricted but I've learnt a lot about guns in the US.

[chuckd]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

Not quite true. I'm still happier to love in a country where guns are restricted but I've learnt a lot about guns in the US.

But my guess is you haven't changed your position on guns yet. Right?

[koheesti]

2) At some point in the future your gun is made illegal and the gov't knows where to come confiscate it

Surely if guns are made illegal (by a legal process obviously) then law abiding gun owners in the US would be willing to give up their guns. That's what 'law abiding' means - obeying the law.

Right, meaning that only criminals would still have guns. Very good point.

Then there's the third type of people who rather more realistically believe that government is neither totally corrupt nor knights in shining armour but a mixture of the two together with many good men and women who try to do their best for their country. If you want to see an example of a country without goverment Somalia is a good example.

Realistically? 555

Is the gov't totally corrupt? No, not totally.

Will politicians do anything in order to get re-elected and stay in power? Absolutely.

Do politicians take money from lobbyists to vote certain ways and ignore what is best for the people they represent? Absolutely.

Are politicians the "best and brightest" a country has to offer? Not by a long shot.

Are politicians primarily concerned for the well-being of the people they were elected to serve? Not by a long shot.

So, they are just mostly corrupt, but not totally.

It's worth pointing out that people's position on how much the gov't can be trusted is directly related to how much they agree with the party currently in power. But in the end, the gov't has one thing in mind - to keep the taxpayer money flowing because that's where the power comes from.

An armed population keeps this gov't - or one in the future - from doing what governments throughout history have done - oppressing their own people at one point or another. Again, not saying Obama is necessarily that guy, but it could certainly happen in 10, 20, 30 years from now if the population is disarmed. To simply write off as "paranoid" what might happen with future governments based on trust one holds in the current government is dangerously naive.

[endure]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

Not quite true. I'm still happier to love in a country where guns are restricted but I've learnt a lot about guns in the US.

But my guess is you haven't changed your position on guns yet. Right?

No and I'm not likely to but I understand a lot more about why Americans feel the way they do. If I'd been born and brought up in the US I may very well have agreed with your point of view but I wasn't. I'm a product of my upbringing just as you are.

[samran]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

Tell me, what do you think is my view on guns?

[koheesti]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

Tell me, what do you think is my view on guns?

Is it safe to assume you are firmly against having one pointed in your direction?

[chuckd]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

Tell me, what do you think is my view on guns?

Do you really expect me to dig back through the previous 500+ posts and see what your opinion on guns is?

Many of your posts are anti-US so I would assume your position is anti-gun, but I ain't going to look it up tonight.

[samran]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

Tell me, what do you think is my view on guns?

Do you really expect me to dig back through the previous 500+ posts and see what your opinion on guns is?

Many of your posts are anti-US so I would assume your position is anti-gun, but I ain't going to look it up tonight.

Go on, try and find an anti-US post.

[chuckd]

This post will be number 530 and my guess is NOT ONE PERSON has changed their mind about guns.

Isn't it time to let this thread have a decent burial?

Thank you.

Tell me, what do you think is my view on guns?

Do you really expect me to dig back through the previous 500+ posts and see what your opinion on guns is?

Many of your posts are anti-US so I would assume your position is anti-gun, but I ain't going to look it up tonight.

Go on, try and find an anti-US post.

Tomorrow. If I can't I will apologize.