Obama doesn't give a fuck about saving childrens lives and neither do you!

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I love NaziCon threads... They are sooo "informative"...

Please elaborate troll. I consider myself an average voice among many. Right leaning maybe but far from extreme.

Please elaborate

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You'd have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT put armed people into our LOCAL schools?

What happened to all that worrying about the encroachment of big brother government?

The fed already funds schools. Its a matter of priortizing funds and maybe asking states to contribute matching funds per district.

Oh. So, you're all for big government. Ok. I didn't realize you were a liberal.

Don't have to be a liberal to know what's important. At the same time I'm for allowing teachers access to biometric safes with weapons in them. Is that a liberal tennate?

 

[DiamondDave]

What do you specifically see in his proposals which are a grab for power the government doesn't already have?

Expansion of bans.. more spending for more oversight of the bans, which means more employees, agency rules, imprint, and presence... It is indeed a power grab and nothing more

That's not a new power. We had a federal assault weapons ban and restricted magazine size for 10 years and several states have them now.

I mean, after all....if you're gonna "grab" for power, what's the point of grabbing what you're already holding?

You expand reach...

What an idiot you are


The old assault weapons ban has COSMETIC criteria... and was an over-reach of expanded power when it was implemented... it did nothing to curb crime

And remind me which states have these incidents in them (the assault weapon free zones and uber restrictive states.. in case you were afraid to answer)


As stated.. this action does nothing to prevent the evildoers from doing a damn thing... they will break laws to get what they want for a weapon... this simply increases power and takes power away from law abiding citizens

 

[Oldguy]

Expansion of bans.. more spending for more oversight of the bans, which means more employees, agency rules, imprint, and presence... It is indeed a power grab and nothing more

That's not a new power. We had a federal assault weapons ban and restricted magazine size for 10 years and several states have them now.

I mean, after all....if you're gonna "grab" for power, what's the point of grabbing what you're already holding?

You expand reach...

What an idiot you are


The old assault weapons ban has COSMETIC criteria... and was an over-reach of expanded power when it was implemented... it did nothing to curb crime

And remind me which states have these incidents in them (the assault weapon free zones and uber restrictive states.. in case you were afraid to answer)


As stated.. this action does nothing to prevent the evildoers from doing a damn thing... they will break laws to get what they want for a weapon... this simply increases power and takes power away from law abiding citizens

What increased powers is he reaching for? Please be specific.

You're right about one thing, though: a "new" assault weapons ban won't accomplish anything more than it did when it was first passed in 1994, with the public support of Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford, by the way.

But....such a ban hasn't gotten through Congress yet (and probably won't), so what you so worried about?

 

[Oldguy]

The fed already funds schools. Its a matter of priortizing funds and maybe asking states to contribute matching funds per district.

Oh. So, you're all for big government. Ok. I didn't realize you were a liberal.

Don't have to be a liberal to know what's important. At the same time I'm for allowing teachers access to biometric safes with weapons in them. Is that a liberal tennate?

Before we go down that path, think back to your school days.

I don't know about you, but I had a few teachers I wouldn't trust with a gun. Didn't you?

And, just imagine what a teacher like Jerry Sandusky could do to kids if he were armed.

 

[DiamondDave]

That's not a new power. We had a federal assault weapons ban and restricted magazine size for 10 years and several states have them now.

I mean, after all....if you're gonna "grab" for power, what's the point of grabbing what you're already holding?

You expand reach...

What an idiot you are


The old assault weapons ban has COSMETIC criteria... and was an over-reach of expanded power when it was implemented... it did nothing to curb crime

And remind me which states have these incidents in them (the assault weapon free zones and uber restrictive states.. in case you were afraid to answer)


As stated.. this action does nothing to prevent the evildoers from doing a damn thing... they will break laws to get what they want for a weapon... this simply increases power and takes power away from law abiding citizens

What increased powers is he reaching for? Please be specific.

You're right about one thing, though: a "new" assault weapons ban won't accomplish anything more than it did when it was first passed in 1994, with the public support of Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford, by the way.

But....such a ban hasn't gotten through Congress yet (and probably won't), so what you so worried about?

Already stated.. more bans, leading to more agency control, leading to more money spent, for more enforcement, for more employees, who answer to those in charge of government...

It is not rocket science, wingnut

 

[Seawytch]

Oh. So, you're all for big government. Ok. I didn't realize you were a liberal.

Don't have to be a liberal to know what's important. At the same time I'm for allowing teachers access to biometric safes with weapons in them. Is that a liberal tennate?

Before we go down that path, think back to your school days.

I don't know about you, but I had a few teachers I wouldn't trust with a gun. Didn't you?

And, just imagine what a teacher like Jerry Sandusky could do to kids if he were armed.

I had few that I would trust with a weapon...one, maybe two. And janitors? No fucking way. Ours were usually developmentally challenged.

I think one or two of my teachers would have failed a background check.

 

[francoHFW]

Liberals want power for the government- doesn't make any sense to me. They want the government to do good.

PUBS want power to help big oil, big health, big pharm, big finance, to make their masters rich, and themselves. To the detriment of the great majority of the people and the country. Then they BS about freedom and family values and how horrible poor people are (code for minorities, lazy Dems lol).

I guess if I listened to the Pub Propaganda machine I would get that crap.

Until then, the cynicism of the dupes in threads like this is just amazing.

 

[Seawytch]

[

But....such a ban hasn't gotten through Congress yet (and probably won't), so what you so worried about?

The NRA President already said as much, right? He should know which congressmen/women he owns.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Oh. So, you're all for big government. Ok. I didn't realize you were a liberal.

Don't have to be a liberal to know what's important. At the same time I'm for allowing teachers access to biometric safes with weapons in them. Is that a liberal tennate?

Before we go down that path, think back to your school days.

I don't know about you, but I had a few teachers I wouldn't trust with a gun. Didn't you?

And, just imagine what a teacher like Jerry Sandusky could do to kids if he were armed.

Back to my school days huh? The stories I have. First ill admit that principle GROVER should never have access to a weapon. That's why only quallified individuals would have access.

Second my 9th grade english teacher was a playboy playmate and prior to her pics being posted on every locker I loved her joke fridays where all we did was tell jokes and goof around.

Thirdly Chris McCabey was a prick. He threw a hockey puck at Mr Elliot, my pe teacher. I laughed cause Mr Elliot was a prick. Needless to say he thought I threw it and jumped up on the reclined gymnasium bleachers and threw me down off of them. I broke several bones and still got spanked for throwing the puck.

As an adult I can comfortably say FUCK SCHOOL

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama doesn't give a fuck about saving childrens lives and neither do you!

Better keep your day-job.

Your psychic-skills appear to be evaporating.​

 

[Oldguy]

Back to my school days huh? The stories I have. First ill admit that principle GROVER should never have access to a weapon. That's why only quallified individuals would have access.

Sounds good on paper, but how do you determine who's "qualified?"

Example: In Harrold, Texas, armed teachers must be approved by the school board. But, the Harrold ISD only has about a dozen teachers and the Board knows them all personally.

Now...consider the New York City public school system. 75,000 teachers! And that doesn't count administrators, staff, helpers and aides. How on earth could a system like that create and enforce a policy of arming school personnel without the possibility of one, single, solitary looney being turned loose on the kids with a gun?

It's a fine idea in theory, but the practical considerations of actually implementing it are quite daunting.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Back to my school days huh? The stories I have. First ill admit that principle GROVER should never have access to a weapon. That's why only quallified individuals would have access.

Sounds good on paper, but how do you determine who's "qualified?"

Example: In Harrold, Texas, armed teachers must be approved by the school board. But, the Harrold ISD only has about a dozen teachers and the Board knows them all personally.

Now...consider the New York City public school system. 75,000 teachers! And that doesn't count administrators, staff, helpers and aides. How on earth could a system like that create and enforce a policy of arming school personnel without the possibility of one, single, solitary looney being turned loose on the kids with a gun?

It's a fine idea in theory, but the practical considerations of actually implementing it are quite daunting.

I'm not advocating that its the one size fits all solution. But I'm willing to put it forward as part of a solution.

I hear lots of political bloviating from the left and not much as to actual solutions.

 

[Oldguy]

Back to my school days huh? The stories I have. First ill admit that principle GROVER should never have access to a weapon. That's why only quallified individuals would have access.

Sounds good on paper, but how do you determine who's "qualified?"

Example: In Harrold, Texas, armed teachers must be approved by the school board. But, the Harrold ISD only has about a dozen teachers and the Board knows them all personally.

Now...consider the New York City public school system. 75,000 teachers! And that doesn't count administrators, staff, helpers and aides. How on earth could a system like that create and enforce a policy of arming school personnel without the possibility of one, single, solitary looney being turned loose on the kids with a gun?

It's a fine idea in theory, but the practical considerations of actually implementing it are quite daunting.

I'm not advocating that its the one size fits all solution. But I'm willing to put it forward as part of a solution.

I hear lots of political bloviating from the left and not much as to actual solutions.

Nobody on the right is proposing any actual solutions either. Know why?

Because THERE ISN'T ONE! Life is dangerous and living in a free country means somebody, somewhere, has the right to break the law if he wants. Oh, sure, there'll be consequences if he does, but it cannot be prevented without destroying the very foundation of freedom.

Nobody wants to admit that, so we play these little games pretending we're doing something. That's just how politics works and it can't work any other way.

 

[francoHFW]

#53-Well, when the looney has to change magazines after 10 bullets, that helps. When he can't go to a gun show and buy one without a background check, that helps. If as in NY now, he threatens violence with a gun and a mental health pro can take away his gun, that helps.

 

[DiamondDave]

Well, when the looney has to change magazines after 10 bullets, that helps. When he can't go to a gun show and buy one without a background check, that helps. If as in NY now, he threatens violence with a gun and a mental health pro can take away his gun, that helps.

Looney won't get an illegal clip?? Won't manufacture one??

Puh-lease

Looney seemed to get around Conn's Assault Weapons Ban

 

[Oldguy]

Well, when the looney has to change magazines after 10 bullets, that helps. When he can't go to a gun show and buy one without a background check, that helps. If as in NY now, he threatens violence with a gun and a mental health pro can take away his gun, that helps.

No. In New York, a mental health professional cannot take away a patient's guns. He MUST however, report that patient to law enforcement, which can take them away under certain, specific circumstances.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just one question before I turn in....

Was no one on the left bothered by the fact school security never came up?

Anyone?

 

[del]

Just one question before I turn in....

Was no one on the left bothered by the fact school security never came up?

Anyone?

do you know how to read?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Just one question before I turn in....

Was no one on the left bothered by the fact school security never came up?

Anyone?

do you know how to read?

I watched the ENTIRE conference. If Obama released some press release afterwards I haven read it beyond what you or others have submitted. As it is I've had a few drinks tonight and have not searched the net for an obscure reference to security that should have been front and center at todays gathering.

Sue me