Nope, they just attack the President for having armed guards for his kids. Because, of course, that is the real debate. Securing the first family who is vulnerable for reasons that the rest of us don't even conceptualize, or having armed teachers in our schools.
Don't tell me the NRA is a reasonable organization. Just don't. This same week they issued a shooting app for the Iphone that included targets that were little coffins. Good grief.
And this dawned on me. If the Assault Weapon ban was so ineffective and did nothing, why does the NRA and gun groups hate it so much? If it is just symbolic, then why would they care?
11 comments:
As if anyone is proposing removing firearms from law enforcement, like cops, the FBI or the Secret Service.
Oh BTW - the right has been calling Obama elitist for 5 years now. He was still elected twice. Nice try NRA, but people like the guy. People also support gun-free school zones. I think the NRA failed to poll test this one.
I certainly wouldn't begrudge protection for the FF, but the NRA was lambasted for suggesting that schools have armed guards. Even without the SS protection, the school that his kids go to has 14 armed guards. Why should the rest of us not be afforded the same protection?
Pot, meet kettle.
I can't speak for everyone, but I lambasted the NRA for fear mongering and wanting teachers and principles to have guns. I lambaste them for robocalling me about Obama and the UN. I lambaste them for treating those of us who want reasoned gun control as if we are unAmerican.
And I fail to understand why this is your response, Steve. If armed guards at schools are the answer, why not armed guards everywhere? Why do we get this shit when we are just talking about background checks and limits on clip size? Shooting at the mall, so let's arm all the store owners?
No need to address the other issues. Nope. Let's just get more guns in as many places as we can. And to those of you who don't like guns? You can just suck it.
And Bob, I think the NRA reads their own polling data. They aren't looking at the majority of Americans (not huge majority, mind you) who want more gun control. They aren't looking at the polls that show wide support for background checks. They are looking at the small number of people who send them money and who will send them even more money when they send out mailers blaming the black guy for everything.
I don't think armed guards at schools is the correct response. I never said that. The NRA, in their press conference last month, called for armed guards in the schools and didn't say anything about allowing concealed carry in schools.
David Gregory, when he was waving around his illegal in DC 30 round mag, was critical of putting armed guards in schools. His kids go to a school with armed guards. You don't see this as hypocritical?
If you look at polling data, support for gun control had been at the lowest it has been in decades. Recently, it has seen a rise, but to say that most people want gun control may not be true.
It isn't as if there aren't armed guards in some schools. My understanding is that is up to the local jurisdiction. Columbine had two armed guards--not that it did that much good. I am guessing many public schools in the DC area have guards, and most of the high value private schools. Part of this is class, and part of this is simply living in a dangerous town. The rich and powerful have all sorts of options that the rest of us don't. But opposing the idea that just armed guards will solve the problem doesn't make them hypocritical.
I agree that support for gun control is low. But the recent Pew poll found something like 85 percent for background checks, and a majority each for assault weapon bans and national database. Here is one article on that poll.
My frustrated tone, as I have said before, is that I don't understand your defense of the NRA. You are a reasonable person and want a reasonable dialogue on guns. The NRA doesn't. Just read a WaPo article on the rise of the modern gun lobby, and it is founded on the basic idea of absolutely no compromise. That isn't reasonable. Attacking Obama's kids isn't reasonable. Attacking even buy-back programs isn't reasonable.
I think the NRA is being lambasted for armed guards because in the same breath they also suggested that they train these people. Their answer to nearly everything is "more guns". Their presser was a political campaign which likely appealed to their base and that is about it.
I even suggested a police presence in schools, but the thought of some NRA trained George Zimmerman in our schools scares the shit out of whole lot of people.
The NRA suggested that resource officers be put in school. In most places, these are cops. I don't think that George Zimmerman ever received NRA training. That being said, the NRA does provide training to police agencies as well as non-police. Some of it is very good. How many NRA courses have you taken?
I agree that there is some support for background checks. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some legislation in this area.
As for compromise, the NRA compromised in 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994. In all of those cases, we got more restrictions. The NRA has pushed for more information sharing and to make it easier to put some crazy people into the NICS system. I think the membership is skeptical of allowing more compromise.
I have an FFL. I don't think it is as easy to buy and possess guns as you think.
This is still a lot of bullshit defending the NRA, Steve. I still don't get that. You defend them, get pissy with me when I get angry at them, then distance yourself when you want to.
I know that the NRA over the years has done a lot of good with gun training. I get that. But they have worked their asses off to undermine every possible act of legislation on the books to limit guns. And that includes, as Jon Stewart just noted, undermining basic information sharing and defunding the ATF. So the bullshit of "let's enforce existing laws" is that the NRA or their people have done everything in their power to defund and disempower the regulatory structure from doing its job.
Then the fucker attacked Obama's family. And you still want me to take them seriously?
"How many NRA courses have you taken?"
One. It was good. It was also 20+ years ago.
I just don't trust them to handle the training of people in my kid's school because they have become a radical – mostly political - organization.
My point about Zimmerman wasn't that I thought the NRA trained him, but I don't want self-appointed vigilantes in schools. Cops? – maybe.
Regularly, I hear some jackass, who is proficient at hitting stationary paper targets, claim they are capable of defending a school being attacked by a guy with an AR15. In the mass chaos that would entail, the average person would piss their pants, shoot themselves, hit mostly bystanders or just get killed. There are a whole lot of people with delusions of grandeur who think they could pick off the guy with a clean headshot. I don’t want those guys in my kid’s school and don’t think the NRA will be able to screen out the crazies (The Zimmermans) or train them in a way them makes them qualified to handle such a rare and extreme event.
I has post all typed out, then my wireless antenna decided to stop working.
I don't believe the NRA has said that only they can provide the training. With the exception of private schools, I believe all security in schools is provided by local LEOs.
My comments regarding training were meant to make the point that the NRA, and many other civilian organizations, provides good training. In addition to working with regular folks, these companies provide training to police and gov't agencies.
I don't believe I have been pissy in this discussion. If I have come across that way, it was not my intention.
Post a Comment