The 2nd Amendment

[VinBucFan]

 I lived in the UK until recently and the police officers do not generally carry guns. In fact, in the fall of 2012 two unarmed female police officers were killed by a career criminal using a gun.

so the criminal still had a gun?   shocking

lol, I would expect nothing more than that uninformed response.  The guy had a grenade too. I guess everyone should be armed with grenades right?

I am an American, but its people like you that make the rest of the world think we are all idiots:

""We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing. We know from the experience in America and other countries, that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot.""

Then move to England permanently a'hole ........

well thought out response . Must have put down the Pabst beer can to type it. 

Thanks for proving precisely the point I made in bold

[VinBucFan]

Then move to England permanently a'hole ........

Now your plan is to insult everyone because you can't support anything you say ..... in the end it is rather sad really ...

ROFLMAO

[VinBucFan]

How unsurprising is this http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/22/gun-control-obama-nra/1851643/

This is a central premise of the opinion piece, as written:

"But then a funny thing happened. After the NRA school-guard strategy was roundly denounced as outright crazy by the pundits, — the editors of the New York Times called it "delusional, almost deranged" — President Obama came out with ... a proposal for armed guards in schools."

In other words,  Obama bashes NRA but then adopts NRA policy. To the author Obama is a hypocrite because he adopted the very policy he bashed.  The problem is that ridiculously false statement would not survive the laugh test for anyone with the ability (or desire) to read.

In its simplest terms, the author's point fails because  "NRA Policy" does not equal the Obama proposal.  The "NRA Policy"  is to put ARMED GUARDS at every school (in lieu of reducing the number and types of guns in society).  The "NRA Policy" is a reflection of the oft-repeated NRA mantra "the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is to have a non-criminal with a gun."

Now, here's the S-T-R-E-T-C-H the author makes (hoping most people are dumb or lazy enough t actually look for themselves). The Obama Admin proposed a COMPREHENSIVE package of gun/public safety initiatives. One -- JUST ONE -- very small piece of that comprehensive plan is for the federal government to provide "Comprehensive School Safety Grants"  These grants could be used by the local school for many safety related purchases, including, as examples, increasing the number of mental health counselors on campus, devising better evacuation plans or hiring more "resource officers."  It the last part -- "resource officers"   -- that the author  equates to the NRA Policy of Armed Guards at every school.  Well, even putting aside that that aspect is only a tiny part of the comprehensive plan or that the grant is provided to the local school to decide how to use it . . . . "resource officers" are not "armed guards" and they would not be at every school because "every school" is not going to choose to add resource officers. Many already have them. Anyway, here's the explanation from the Post (that the author does not want you to read):

"The Administration is proposing a new Comprehensive School Safety program, which will help school districts hire staff and make other critical investments in school safety. The program will give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The Department of Justice will also develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students. School districts could also use these Comprehensive School Safety Grants to purchase school safety equipment; develop and update public safety plans; conduct threat assessments; and train “crisis intervention teams” of law enforcement officers to work with the mental health community to respond to and assist students in crisis. And the General Services Administration will use its purchasing power to help schools buy safety equipment affordably."

Now . ..  . is that the same as the NRA Policy to put armed guards in every school because the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is to have a non-criminal with a gun? OF COURSE NOT.  I am no fan of Obama, but neither am I a fan of dishonest stupidity. Obama did not bash a policy and then adopt it. Silly tripe.

Its a shame that a Tennessee law professor thinks so little of USA Today readers.

[Chief Joseph]

Is that your new nickname, "The Drum"?

[Dolorous Jason]

Is that your new nickname, "The Drum"?

It would be fitting.

[olafberserker]

 I lived in the UK until recently and the police officers do not generally carry guns. In fact, in the fall of 2012 two unarmed female police officers were killed by a career criminal using a gun.

so the criminal still had a gun?   shocking

lol, I would expect nothing more than that uninformed response.  The guy had a grenade too. I guess everyone should be armed with grenades right?

I am an American, but its people like you that make the rest of the world think we are all idiots:

""We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing. We know from the experience in America and other countries, that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot.""

Then move to England permanently a'hole ........

well thought out response . Must have put down the Pabst beer can to type it. 

Thanks for proving precisely the point I made in bold

almost as well thought out as you pointing out that the guy had a grenade as well or I know as well thought out as if we ban AR then the violence will stop ........  the rest of the world can think whatever they want, if they read your posts it just might confirm it for them .....


ROFLMAO about that for a minute genius ........

[olafberserker]

Then move to England permanently a'hole ........

Now your plan is to insult everyone because you can't support anything you say ..... in the end it is rather sad really ...

ROFLMAO

you two geniuses are perfect for one another.  you should retire together to one of these much better countries around the world that think "we are all idiots"

[Dolorous Jason]

Then move to England permanently a'hole ........

Now your plan is to insult everyone because you can't support anything you say ..... in the end it is rather sad really ...

ROFLMAO

you two geniuses are perfect for one another.  you should retire together to one of these much better countries around the world that think "we are all idiots"

Peanut Butter Boy is too good for any message board below the Insider , and he's too good for America , yet he spends all his time in both .


Go figure...

[dbucfan]

How unsurprising is this http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/22/gun-control-obama-nra/1851643/

This is a central premise of the opinion piece, as written:

"But then a funny thing happened. After the NRA school-guard strategy was roundly denounced as outright crazy by the pundits, — the editors of the New York Times called it "delusional, almost deranged" — President Obama came out with ... a proposal for armed guards in schools."

In other words,  Obama bashes NRA but then adopts NRA policy. To the author Obama is a hypocrite because he adopted the very policy he bashed.  The problem is that ridiculously false statement would not survive the laugh test for anyone with the ability (or desire) to read.

In its simplest terms, the author's point fails because  "NRA Policy" does not equal the Obama proposal.  The "NRA Policy"  is to put ARMED GUARDS at every school (in lieu of reducing the number and types of guns in society).  The "NRA Policy" is a reflection of the oft-repeated NRA mantra "the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is to have a non-criminal with a gun."

Now, here's the S-T-R-E-T-C-H the author makes (hoping most people are dumb or lazy enough t actually look for themselves). The Obama Admin proposed a COMPREHENSIVE package of gun/public safety initiatives. One -- JUST ONE -- very small piece of that comprehensive plan is for the federal government to provide "Comprehensive School Safety Grants"  These grants could be used by the local school for many safety related purchases, including, as examples, increasing the number of mental health counselors on campus, devising better evacuation plans or hiring more "resource officers."  It the last part -- "resource officers"   -- that the author  equates to the NRA Policy of Armed Guards at every school.  Well, even putting aside that that aspect is only a tiny part of the comprehensive plan or that the grant is provided to the local school to decide how to use it . . . . "resource officers" are not "armed guards" and they would not be at every school because "every school" is not going to choose to add resource officers. Many already have them. Anyway, here's the explanation from the Post (that the author does not want you to read):

"The Administration is proposing a new Comprehensive School Safety program, which will help school districts hire staff and make other critical investments in school safety. The program will give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The Department of Justice will also develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students. School districts could also use these Comprehensive School Safety Grants to purchase school safety equipment; develop and update public safety plans; conduct threat assessments; and train “crisis intervention teams” of law enforcement officers to work with the mental health community to respond to and assist students in crisis. And the General Services Administration will use its purchasing power to help schools buy safety equipment affordably."

Now . ..  . is that the same as the NRA Policy to put armed guards in every school because the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is to have a non-criminal with a gun? OF COURSE NOT.  I am no fan of Obama, but neither am I a fan of dishonest stupidity. Obama did not bash a policy and then adopt it. Silly tripe.

Its a shame that a Tennessee law professor thinks so little of USA Today readers.

Interesting take on Obama/Biden's plan(s).  I posted the article because of the title of the article and therefore the comparison of support percentages.

[olafberserker]

Ban the rope.  Sad story and shows the mental imbalance of some.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/pennsylvania-doctor-found-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[deadzone]

Whatever...........as an American, I feel I deserve the same small arms technology as our government has....What makes them more special than me?

[VinBucFan]

 I lived in the UK until recently and the police officers do not generally carry guns. In fact, in the fall of 2012 two unarmed female police officers were killed by a career criminal using a gun.

so the criminal still had a gun?   shocking

lol, I would expect nothing more than that uninformed response.  The guy had a grenade too. I guess everyone should be armed with grenades right?

I am an American, but its people like you that make the rest of the world think we are all idiots:

""We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing. We know from the experience in America and other countries, that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot.""

Then move to England permanently a'hole ........

well thought out response . Must have put down the Pabst beer can to type it. 

Thanks for proving precisely the point I made in bold

almost as well thought out as you pointing out that the guy had a grenade as well or I know as well thought out as if we ban AR then the violence will stop ........  the rest of the world can think whatever they want, if they read your posts it just might confirm it for them .....


ROFLMAO about that for a minute genius ........

I guess you couldn't put down the Pabst

[Biggs3535]

 I lived in the UK until recently and the police officers do not generally carry guns. In fact, in the fall of 2012 two unarmed female police officers were killed by a career criminal using a gun.

so the criminal still had a gun?   shocking

lol, I would expect nothing more than that uninformed response.  The guy had a grenade too. I guess everyone should be armed with grenades right?

I am an American, but its people like you that make the rest of the world think we are all idiots:

""We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing. We know from the experience in America and other countries, that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot.""

Then move to England permanently a'hole ........

well thought out response . Must have put down the Pabst beer can to type it. 

Thanks for proving precisely the point I made in bold

almost as well thought out as you pointing out that the guy had a grenade as well or I know as well thought out as if we ban AR then the violence will stop ........  the rest of the world can think whatever they want, if they read your posts it just might confirm it for them .....


ROFLMAO about that for a minute genius ........

I guess you couldn't put down the Pabst

Were you spouting a whole bunch of lame crap like this when you were a victim of a gun crime?

[olafberserker]

apparently that is one of his "well thought out" responses

[spartan]

How unsurprising is this http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/22/gun-control-obama-nra/1851643/

This is a central premise of the opinion piece, as written:

"But then a funny thing happened. After the NRA school-guard strategy was roundly denounced as outright crazy by the pundits, — the editors of the New York Times called it "delusional, almost deranged" — President Obama came out with ... a proposal for armed guards in schools."

In other words,  Obama bashes NRA but then adopts NRA policy. To the author Obama is a hypocrite because he adopted the very policy he bashed.  The problem is that ridiculously false statement would not survive the laugh test for anyone with the ability (or desire) to read.

In its simplest terms, the author's point fails because  "NRA Policy" does not equal the Obama proposal.  The "NRA Policy"  is to put ARMED GUARDS at every school (in lieu of reducing the number and types of guns in society).  The "NRA Policy" is a reflection of the oft-repeated NRA mantra "the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is to have a non-criminal with a gun."

Now, here's the S-T-R-E-T-C-H the author makes (hoping most people are dumb or lazy enough t actually look for themselves). The Obama Admin proposed a COMPREHENSIVE package of gun/public safety initiatives. One -- JUST ONE -- very small piece of that comprehensive plan is for the federal government to provide "Comprehensive School Safety Grants"  These grants could be used by the local school for many safety related purchases, including, as examples, increasing the number of mental health counselors on campus, devising better evacuation plans or hiring more "resource officers."  It the last part -- "resource officers"   -- that the author  equates to the NRA Policy of Armed Guards at every school.  Well, even putting aside that that aspect is only a tiny part of the comprehensive plan or that the grant is provided to the local school to decide how to use it . . . . "resource officers" are not "armed guards" and they would not be at every school because "every school" is not going to choose to add resource officers. Many already have them. Anyway, here's the explanation from the Post (that the author does not want you to read):

"The Administration is proposing a new Comprehensive School Safety program, which will help school districts hire staff and make other critical investments in school safety. The program will give $150 million to school districts and law enforcement agencies to hire school resource officers, school psychologists, social workers, and counselors. The Department of Justice will also develop a model for using school resource officers, including best practices on age-appropriate methods for working with students. School districts could also use these Comprehensive School Safety Grants to purchase school safety equipment; develop and update public safety plans; conduct threat assessments; and train “crisis intervention teams” of law enforcement officers to work with the mental health community to respond to and assist students in crisis. And the General Services Administration will use its purchasing power to help schools buy safety equipment affordably."

Now . ..  . is that the same as the NRA Policy to put armed guards in every school because the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is to have a non-criminal with a gun? OF COURSE NOT.  I am no fan of Obama, but neither am I a fan of dishonest stupidity. Obama did not bash a policy and then adopt it. Silly tripe.

Its a shame that a Tennessee law professor thinks so little of USA Today readers.

So what is a Resource Officer?