With all due respect, I think you misread my post. I never said people on this board suggested that federal money be spent to place armed guards in all schools. I was referring to politicians, the media and members of the NRA Board. As for the NRA, I care what they say when they hold a press conference after a tragedy of this magnitude and make what I believe to be outrageous statements.
Most of the local governments in this country are flat broke and couldn't survive for 10 minutes without federal funding. Unlike the Feds they can't print money to pay for it. Adding a few cops will bankrupt thousands of communities across the country who are paying for dozens of cops pensions and health care who don't provide any services. We can't even fund teachers in schools and you want to add cops in schools. The same creepy gun nuts and anti Federal government involvement nuts want the Federal government to block grant the money for these kind of "Local" expenditures. It's no different then flat out welfare.
so you think it is more reasonable to stick to a previous position, despite any events that should cause you to reconsider, than it is to change your stance? changing your position on a situation in the face of this event does not reveal any hypocrisy in those who would change.
What position has the NRA reconsidered or changed? If you can't see the hypocrisy of conservatives asking the federal government to spend billions on armed guards for schools, I just don't even know how to reply.
that is as asinine as saying it is hypocritical for Republicans to want to spend billions on the military. Republicans aren't against spending money, so any attempt to claim that when Republicans do want to spend money reveals hypocrisy on their part is ridiculous. Republicans are against the government being responsible for specific tasks, thus increasing the size of government and having it in charge of things they believe should be private industry. having cops protect public schools in no way, shape or form even resembles something that should be a private industry. if you don't know the difference, I don't know what to say.
Overall you are right on but I don't see how there is a huge difference between them supporting cops protecting public schools and not supporting raises and/or hiring more teachers for the very schools those police would be protecting. You don't see any hypocrisy in that?
this isn't something that should be federally mandated, it is simply the solution for protection that makes the most sense. it is up to the local government to figure it out. perhaps you simply make it the duty of an existing cop. sure, it reduces the amount of cops on patrol, but so be it. that solution may work for some cities. or you raise local taxes to pay for it. point is it doesn't depend on adding new salaries to accomplish and bankrupting cities isn't the result from protecting schools with local police. even in a small Los Angeles County city like I live in with 5 schools you are talking about adding 5 cops at a total of maybe $250k per year in salary increase than before. that's doable.
Yeah I'm not saying I'm a fan of the cops at school thing because I'm not sure what the best answer is but I laugh when people act like nobody could afford this. Yet we have no problem paying traffic cops to sit for hours at midday(when schools are in) trying to catch people going 10 over. Please GTFOH with that nonsense. I think each city can part with that "contribution" to society.
agree. We protect anything that has to do with money. We pay for everyone to get groped and unnessessary reach arounds at the airport,we can certainly kick in a few buck to protect our kids
Your figure is stupid low, LA has laid off workers in the last 12 months. They don't have a pot to piss in. We are on the verge of the Federal government bailing out or being forced to guarantee local bonds all over the country. Pensions and health care are the gift that keep on giving long after the protection is no longer being provided. As an aside do the kids of Newtown deserve local protection because they can afford it but the inner city of Detroit kids don't deserve it? Public education is a right in this country. The "local" answer isn't a real answer. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/08/03-jobs-greenstone-looney
It's not about regulating intent. It's about regulating the efficiency with which people with ill intent can carry it out. It's very simple. The fewer rounds that some dickhead can get off in an attack, the fewer the number of people that get hurt. So restricting weapons that are ridiculously overpowered for anything an average person needs is an unacceptable violation of rights, but forcing everyone into military service whether they want to or not is perfectly fine? What a fucking backwards world you live in.
If you allow our military to become a mercenary army that can be deployed at the whim of the President, pretty much where we are right now you are definitely putting a free society at high risk. If we had a mandatory draft we wouldn't be at war right now and you wouldn't need guns to protect us from the Federal army.
Sure, it sounds good, but then what's to stop the person with ill intent from doing something like making a homemade bomb, which could probably kill more people than a man with a gun? That's the problem, you can't regulate intent, you can only punish people who have already acted on their bad intentions. Otherwise you have to be psychic and just know ahead of time how somebody could act in the future when they buy any weapon.
Why aren't they using bombs now? Why are they using guns? I'll go ahead and answer that for you. Guns are easier to get ahold of. Easier to learn how to use than learning how to make a bomb. Easier to conceal. Easier to do the damage quickly. No set up needed. Guns almost always work as they were built by a professional, many times by hand. Bombs often dont work, since they are being built by an amateur. I could go on. Any law that plays a part in forcing people to find another means such as a bomb, we are making it harder/more of a pain in the ass. If that results in less of these mass shootings we have done our job. And that is without banning all guns.
yeah,because the military almost never sends home any kooks. Everyone comes hom perfectly sane. wouldnt it be much easier to require a two day safety course?
