God help us all!

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
I appreciate the sentiment but my advice to anyone who owns any guns is to sell them. They are going to get them this time because as we learned from the last election the tide has turned and we are outnumbered. It might not happen right away but as soon as a conservative justice dies or retires it's a done deal. So sell them before you have to turn them in.
Jaxvid, you know I respect your posts and intellect. Heck, I have commented several times about you being one of the voices of reason here. But I am astounded by this! I interpet your post to mean is ' Guys disarm yourselves for pennies on the dollar by selling your guns now!' Really! Just give in, disarm and ceed our rights/defense to the government? Just turn them over cause the time is coming when they will just take them away. Please tell me your post is a big typo? Or I am interpeting it incorrectly.

How about we resist or join NRA which I did 10 years ago. How about that concept of resistence? I think our White forefathers did something like that, creating this country. I think I read that somewhere.

Instead of selling I intend to buy a few more and place them in strategic locations in my home. And a couple more secreted on my person when going out anywhere. Not going Deniro in Taxi but a notch or 2 below that.

Our mantra here should be that of the late/great Charlston Heston "From My cold dead hands" , rather than its over, sell your firearms, make some pocket change, make it easy for the government to disarm you and in the end utterly control you.

Whats happening at CF?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
1,248
Location
Illinois
There are two many Sandys involved. First there was SANDRA Fluke. The there was hurricane SANDY. Then SANDY Hook. Could this mean anything?
 

Menelik

Mentor
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,175
Location
Georgia
There are two many Sandys involved. First there was SANDRA Fluke. The there was hurricane SANDY. Then SANDY Hook. Could this mean anything?


Are you serious?
 

werewolf

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
5,997
I appreciate the sentiment but my advice to anyone who owns any guns is to sell them. They are going to get them this time because as we learned from the last election the tide has turned and we are outnumbered. It might not happen right away but as soon as a conservative justice dies or retires it's a done deal. So sell them before you have to turn them in.



And while you're at it you can lie down on your back and stick your paws up in the air and practice begging for mercy.
 
Last edited:

Wes Woodhead

Mentor
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
1,104
I appreciate the sentiment but my advice to anyone who owns any guns is to sell them. They are going to get them this time because as we learned from the last election the tide has turned and we are outnumbered. It might not happen right away but as soon as a conservative justice dies or retires it's a done deal. So sell them before you have to turn them in.

I hate to say that I agree that they will get them eventually. I have to say though that Ill go out blasting before I just sell mine or give them up willingly. Id much rather my sons see daddy go out like a warrior than a bitch.
 

Westside

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
7,703
Location
So Cal
I hate to say that I agree that they will get them eventually. I have to say though that Ill go out blasting before I just sell mine or give them up willingly. Id much rather my sons see daddy go out like a warrior than a bitch.
Here, Here, this is the CF Spirit that I hope is still here, rather than a watered downed DWFish or dis spirited White Men who are about to "go along to get along" group think.
 
Last edited:

Tom Iron

Mentor
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
1,597
Location
New Jersey
Gentlemen, I just sent a letter to the editor to the local rag in which I said of the Connecticut type of shooting, words to the effect that it's not the "gun." It's the young man/men who are allowed to exist in a fantasyland of video games who are responsible. We see the it all the time in restaurants. Their family sitting around the table and the boy sitting there looking down playing with his gadget, whatever it may be ( I don't know one gadget from another) completely ignoring the rest of the family and everything around him. I'll bet when he gets home, he runs right to his room so he can continue ignoring everybody, but this time in isolation. He probably was forced to go to the restaurant anyway. Very sick situation we live in. Another small point is even if they institute some extreme gun control, it won't change a thing. If in the remote possibility the fedgov did somehow stop guns from getting into the wrong hands, these same maniacs would just progress to suicide bombings.

Tom Iron...
 

Kaptain

Master
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,346
Location
Minnesota
It's seems we will be living through The Turner Diaries - if we are lucky. Hiding your fireams with the construction of household walls - for those not familar. What i find with every watershed grabbing of rights or the issue of the day is how the mainstream media files suit everytime. Especially noted is how the so-called Conservative News outlets, like Fox News, suddenly capitulate and put up what i think are purposely weak arguements - strawman's arguements for the other side. I flipped between CNN and Fox - supposed idealogical opposites and found them in general agreement - again.
 

Michael

Mentor
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
870
Something is missing. Rather the Government/mainstream media is hiding it or just don't know is a question. The mainstream media seem more interested in spinning the story to fit their agenda rather then find out the truth! As this article entitled "Why they're desperate"
The increased hysterics we're seeing from the media is their horror at the dawning realization that a very large and statistically significant number of Americans will never, ever give up their guns, not even if Washington arranges to have a kindergarten shot up every single day. It unsettles them deeply to recognize that the mere fact of Obama holding office scares more people than elementary school massacres.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-theyre-desperate.html A monster kills his mother then attacks an elementary school. The mainstream media has come up with that his mother was going to institutionalize him so he was mad at her but that only gives a motive for killing her and himself not attacking the school. The mainstream media has reported that she was a teacher, substitute teacher or volunteer at the school but all denied by people who would know. As the article quoted above infers many of the common people in the country are not falling for the mainstream media propaganda anymore. If reports are accurate that he destroyed his computer's hard drive that shows he is hiding something. But what? Reports of a incident at the school the day before but unknown if it was with him, but if it was he either was casing the school or if he had done if before possibly a pedophile, which could explain an attack on little children but won't fit the liberal cause and is a remote possibility, if not him could someone else have case the place but that gets into a conspiracy. Looking at the rumors flying around the internet he was a Jew (based on someone finding the name Lanza on a list of Sicilian Jewish families), an anarchist/communist, and a campaign volunteer for the Democratic presidential candidate. All angles that won't fit the mainstream media spin. Are they true? Who knows. But so much reported in the mainstream media has turned out to be false or misleading it is a possibility. What if he was a "Democratic" anarchist that could explain why the little children would be targeted. What better way to advance the communist ("Democrat") agenda especially on gun control. Rather drugs prescription or otherwise or fear of being sent to the nut farm pushed him over the edge is secondary, to his motive of attacking little children. What we have here is a rich kid, who's father not much mentioned is a borderline minor "elite". This monster would have access to guns no mater what the law was for common people. No mention of his family politics which if not democratic party would have been front page news. So if this kid turns out to be either a Democratic or an anarchist any call for gun control needs to be seen as giving into terrorist, since that could be the motive for this terrorist attack!
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Really gonna miss Ron Paul....

Ron Paul rips NRA plan for officers in every school
"Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government 'do something' to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned," Paul said. "The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we're told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped."
He continued: "I don't agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets."

I heard this idea of "a cop in every school" floated right after the incident and the colossal stupidity of it hit me right away. There is not enough money to pay the cops we have now. All local and state branches of police are laying off and tightening up as every level of govt tries to deal with the massive debt they have incurred, and the high expense of law enforcement.

How are you going to add a cop to every school? There must be tens of thousands of schools in the country. And you don't need a single cop either, someone also has to cover the 2nd shift, vacation, and sick days. In many cases that lone cop won't be able to do anything either. They could be ambushed or attacked when not ready, and a lot of cops are not by themselves much of a deterrent to armed thugs. 300 pound women probably are not going to deter too many psychos, neither will many of the male specimens that currently wear the blue uniform.

But I can see govt going for this. It's a great chance to grow a new bureaucracy, add thousands of dues paying union members and grab more tax income. I'm sure it appeals to women who always want the long arm of the law around them. Hopefully this idea goes away.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,406
Location
Pennsylvania
In lots of Third World countries, half of the employed men work as security guards of some sort or another. The law enforcement/security guard type of jobs will continue to grow in the U.S. as it transitions into a Third Worldized place demographically and economically which by necessity must be run by a police and surveillance state.
 

Truthteller

Mentor
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,205
In lots of Third World countries, half of the employed men work as security guards of some sort or another. The law enforcement/security guard type of jobs will continue to grow in the U.S. as it transitions into a Third Worldized place demographically and economically which by necessity must be run by a police and surveillance state.

Yes, eventually when our Kosher friends have their way and the entire country looks like California, there will probably be "armed guards" everywhere to protect us from the vermin they brought to our shores.

As far as Ron Paul, I think he's slowly turning into a complete a$$/sellout. Okay, if we don't have enough money to hire armed guard to protect our own American children, why do have more than enough money to educate and support all the children of illegal aliens? How many billions have we lost trying to educate these Mexican and black "immigrant" kids who have little to no future, other than a few hundred males who might eventually play pro sports or few thousand black/Hispanic females that will become singers or go into porn?

Same liberals that don't want armed guards in schools, want amnesty for millions of third-world anchor babies. They alsowant free or discounted college tuition for old illegals? Again, how many billions lost there, and why hasn't Mr. Paul come out stronger against illegal immigration in recent years? Also, isn't his son, Rand, suddenly supporting amnesty?

How about bring our "troops" back from Middle East and assigning them to protect our borders and our schools? Oops, forgot, it's much more important to defend Israel than our own children?


****
Micheal, as far the "Jewish connection" is concerned, I don't know that there is any proof that Lanza is Jewish, as Lanza does NOT appear to be anything but Italian/Spanish. He obviously could be, as there are many Italian Jews in America. 80 something year old, ex-baseball star Ralph Branca recently announced publicly his mother was Italian/Jewish. Had he done it 50 years ago, he probably would've made millions as a broadcaster or team exec (ala Joe Garigiola or Joe Torre).

The guy New York's national Airport (ex-mayor Laguardia) was Italian Jewish -- which is probably the only reason a "Italian" would ever get an Airport named after him in America.

As far as an absolute Jewish connection, all we know is the father, Peter Lanza, dumped the women he began dating in high school and was married to for almost 30 years for a Jewish women. We also know at least 3 kids (two boys) killed were Jewish. But, obviously, they were merely just innocent victims, as were all the other kids.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
As far as Ron Paul, I think he's slowly turning into a complete a$$/sellout. Okay, if we don't have enough money to hire armed guard to protect our own American children, why do have more than enough money to educate and support all the children of illegal aliens? How many billions have we lost trying to educate these Mexican and black "immigrant" kids who have little to no future, other than a few hundred males who might eventually play pro sports or few thousand black/Hispanic females that will become singers or go into porn?

Same liberals that don't want armed guards in schools, want amnesty for millions of third-world anchor babies. They also want free or discounted college tuition for old illegals? Again, how many billions lost there, and why hasn't Mr. Paul come out stronger against illegal immigration in recent years? Also, isn't his son, Rand, suddenly supporting amnesty?

How about bring our "troops" back from Middle East and assigning them to protect our borders and our schools? Oops, forgot, it's much more important to defend Israel than our own children?

Don't understand the anger at Ron Paul on this issue. While Paul was not "great" on immigration he also was not horrible. Anyway he certainly opposed government programs aimed at illegal immigrants-consistent with his libertarian views.

As far as "having enough money to protect our own American children", what does that mean? Is that a blank check for government to enact any program, spend any amount of money, as long as it's FOR THE CHILDREN. It's as bad an idea as a meaningless assault weapon ban that will accomplish nothing. It's an opportunity for the Demorats and the Repukelicans to build an even bigger govt., one that won't even accomplish the goal of making the world safer for OUR children.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland

Truthteller

Mentor
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,205
As far as "having enough money to protect our own American children", what does that mean? Is that a blank check for government to enact any program, spend any amount of money, as long as it's FOR THE CHILDREN. It's as bad an idea as a meaningless assault weapon ban that will accomplish nothing. It's an opportunity for the Demorats and the Repukelicans to build an even bigger govt., one that won't even accomplish the goal of making the world safer for OUR children.

I disagree and I never said anything about a "blank check". Again, my point was this: How many children of illegal aliens have gone through American schools in the last 30 years? Millions? At what cost, billions to the American taxpayers? Why aren't Ron Paul and others just as worried about the wasted costs to pay for these mostly Mexican children, who mostly wind up as low achievers and a serious drag on society: http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_california-demographics.html

As far as armed guards, I'm in a pretty nice part of the country and I believe both our local high schools have had at LEAST ONE police officer guarding the school at all times. This has been the case for well over a decade -- since Columbine, perhaps? I know Newtown is a fairly small town (population wise), so my guess is there only 5 or 6 six schools (all levels) in the entire town. And that might be a high projection.

Why would it be silly for a fairly wealthy town that size to have just one police officer or armed guard at each school? In this particular school (Sandy Hook), only 2 of the women murdered where teachers and one was the Principal. The others were support staff. Going to the schools website, the school had several dozen support staff -- teachers aids, nurses, psychiatrists, ect. This is not even counting janitors, lunch room staff, ect.

Therefore, why would it be crazy to add one more employee, perhaps a retired police officer? Maybe we could replace the "school psychiatrist" with an armed guard and we'd be break even? Sure another shooting might never happen again, but why even risk it?

You know, I honestly believe the real reason so many "libs" are against this (placing armed guards or police at schools), is because most want more shooting...If a few more "Newtowns" occur, then the Rachel Maddow, Piers Morgan and Chuck Schumer types will really get what they want --- much stronger gun control measures. Perhaps even a total ban on fire-arms, ala England.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
439
I disagree and I never said anything about a "blank check". Again, my point was this: How many children of illegal aliens have gone through American schools in the last 30 years? Millions? At what cost, billions to the American taxpayers? Why aren't Ron Paul and others just as worried about the wasted costs to pay for these mostly Mexican children, who mostly wind up as low achievers and a serious drag on society: http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_california-demographics.html As far as armed guards, I'm in a pretty nice part of the country and I believe both our local high schools have had at LEAST ONE police officer guarding the school at all times. This has been the case for well over a decade -- since Columbine, perhaps? I know Newtown is a fairly small town (population wise), so my guess is there only 5 or 6 six schools (all levels) in the entire town. And that might be a high projection. Why would it be silly for a fairly wealthy town that size to have just one police officer or armed guard at each school? In this particular school (Sandy Hook), only 2 of the women murdered where teachers and one was the Principal. The others were support staff. Going to the schools website, the school had several dozen support staff -- teachers aids, nurses, psychiatrists, ect. This is not even counting janitors, lunch room staff, ect. Therefore, why would it be crazy to add one more employee, perhaps a retired police officer? Maybe we could replace the "school psychiatrist" with an armed guard and we'd be break even? Sure another shooting might never happen again, but why even risk it? You know, I honestly believe the real reason so many "libs" are against this (placing armed guards or police at schools), is because most want more shooting...If a few more "Newtowns" occur, then the Rachel Maddow, Piers Morgan and Chuck Schumer types will really get what they want --- much stronger gun control measures. Perhaps even a total ban on fire-arms, ala England.
It is not just "libs" that are against placing armed guards in schools. I would not doubt if there are plans in place to put armed TSA agents in all schools and malls. Be careful of what you wish for!!
 

Truthteller

Mentor
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,205
Below is an interesting article regarding armed guards at schools

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

...President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

Full article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

***

Bearclaw, I'm not sure what your point is? I'm not saying we should all live in a police state, with armed guards and TSA thugs everywhere we go. But our local high school (which is less than a mile away from were I'm typing) has had at least one armed police officer in it's parking lot for over a decade. That's from the moment school starts until well after school ends. This is a city/town cop assigned to the school by our mayor, not some security guard. Why shouldn't all schools at least consider this?

Perhaps I'm taking the murder of these mostly white children in Newtown, CT. much harder than many others here for reasons I'd rather not talk about, but I really don't why we can't give these schools more protection. Simply put: That sub-human animal, Adam Lanza, had at least 10 minutes to do all the damage he did, because in a small, rural town like Newton it took the cops at least 10 minutes to respond. That's not acceptable and can't happen again!

***

BTY, in case anyone needs reminding, without any sort of protection (via the police or armed security guards) these were very small children that had no way to defend themselves, other than to run away and hope they were not shot by the animal:

In this class (photo link below), 10 kids did get away and save their lives, thanks to brave, unarmed teachers distracting the gunman while they fled. Tragically, 5 kids did not make it, nor did their teachers. Notice how "tiny" Allison and Olivia were?

Photo of Newton class: http://www.nypost.com/r/nypost/2012/12/23/news/web_photos/web_sandy_school--525x429.jpg


In this class, only one of 15 children survived the massacre. Notice the small girl in the back (Josephine) with the red shirt and glasses. In addition to being much smaller than most of her classmates, she was physically handicapped -- mute (couldn't speak) and visually impaired. If there is special place in hell for the "worst of the worst", not sure any will ever take Adam Lanza's spot.

Photo of Newton class 2x: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/19/article-2250326-1692D93A000005DC-447_634x406.jpg


In sum, I guess all the "elites" will continue to have their children protected at all times, but these middle class white kids somehow deserve to be treated differently? Perhaps the American taxpayers have spent too much already on educating the low IQ kids of illegals (countless billions), defending the State of Israel and "spreading democracy" in the Middle East (trillions) and building sports stadiums for all black teams (like the Steelers, Bengals and 49ers) to even consider this?

From this point on, there is nothing more for me to say on this topic, other than I agree wholeheartedly with the Wayne LaPierre of the NRA -- we need to protect our schools better.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,406
Location
Pennsylvania
Gee, when I went to high school, smoking was ignored, and even weed smoking was pretty much quasi-legal. Young adults had a modicum of freedom, hard as it may be to believe today.

Now, every school not only looks like a prison from the outside, but has become one from the inside as well. Armed cops at every school? To go along with the metal detectors and cameras, and even in at least a few school districts, bio-chips to track the little slaves' every move. How many mass school shootings have there been over the past five years? Very few, yet when one happens everyone acts like a little bitch. Columbine was the turning point as far as integrating all schools into the surveillance state, and that happened in 1999. Students have a better chance of being hit by a meteorite than to be shot at their school. Land of the free, what a joke.
 
Last edited:

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,035
Gee, when I went to high school, smoking was ignored, and even weed smoking was pretty much quasi-legal. Young adults had a modicum of freedom, hard as it may be to believe today.

Now, every school not only looks like a prison from the outside, but has become one from the inside as well. Armed cops at every school? To go along with the metal detectors and cameras, and even in at least a few school districts, bio-chips to track the little slaves' every move. How many mass school shootings have there been over the past five years? Very few, yet when one happens everyone acts like a little bitch. Columbine was the turning point as far as integrating all schools into the surveillance state, and that happened in 1999. Students have a better chance of being hit by a meteorite than to be shot at their school. Land of the free, what a joke.
This wing nut has further muddied the waters on gun control. He is a convicted felon who had an illegal gun(s) when he went on his shooting spree. Sadly after the recent shootings because "only" 3 people have been murdered on his spree(so far) it hasn't blown up like other mass shootings.....http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/24/firefighters-shot-rochester.html
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
1,248
Location
Illinois
The Sandy Hook shooting is not a gun issue, it is a mental health issue. The shooter never was arrested, nor did he threaten anyone. As far as I know he passed all his classes in school. At school he was a member of a club and the baseball team. Even leaving school to be home schooled is not unusual. Due to the No Child Left Behind law, schools have to slow down for the dumbest student, so families of intellent student often pull them out so that they can learn more. The key phase to have someone committed is that they are "a danger to themselves and others." Our society allows unusual behavior or strange beliefs as long as they cause no harm. Being socially isolated is not a reason to have someone committed. Therapy would have helped, but he had to make the decision to go.
If you say that we should change the laws so that it is easier to commit someone like the shooter, think again. Just imagine this power in the hands of someone like Barack Obama or Eric Holder. They can stop any debate against their policies by calling you a "Rassist." Think of what they could do if they can declare you insane and lock you up. Do you think they would hesitate?
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
The Sandy Hook shooting is not a gun issue, it is a mental health issue. The shooter never was arrested, nor did he threaten anyone. As far as I know he passed all his classes in school. At school he was a member of a club and the baseball team. Even leaving school to be home schooled is not unusual. Due to the No Child Left Behind law, schools have to slow down for the dumbest student, so families of intellent student often pull them out so that they can learn more. The key phase to have someone committed is that they are "a danger to themselves and others." Our society allows unusual behavior or strange beliefs as long as they cause no harm. Being socially isolated is not a reason to have someone committed. Therapy would have helped, but he had to make the decision to go.
If you say that we should change the laws so that it is easier to commit someone like the shooter, think again. Just imagine this power in the hands of someone like Barack Obama or Eric Holder. They can stop any debate against their policies by calling you a "Rassist." Think of what they could do if they can declare you insane and lock you up. Do you think they would hesitate?

It's not even a mental health issue. It's a personal responsibility issue. There was no reason in the world to commit that Lanza guy. Nothing in his past would have indicated a violent episode, let along something like this. There is not enough money in the country to jail violent offenders so the idea of committing someone who has not given the slightest indication of violence is absurd.

Lanza was strange but there are maybe a million more like him. There is no way to incarcerate them all and of course the idea shouldn't even be brought up because they have done nothing wrong so far and probably never will. Only a desperate hysterical emotion driven person would overact in a manner to empower govt to incarcerate "odd" people. With the govt we have now that concept sounds scary as hell.
 

DixieDestroyer

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
9,464
Location
Dixieland

Truthteller

Mentor
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,205
Gee, when I went to high school, smoking was ignored, and even weed smoking was pretty much quasi-legal. Young adults had a modicum of freedom, hard as it may be to believe today.

Now, every school not only looks like a prison from the outside, but has become one from the inside as well. Armed cops at every school? To go along with the metal detectors and cameras, and even in at least a few school districts, bio-chips to track the little slaves' every move. How many mass school shootings have there been over the past five years? Very few, yet when one happens everyone acts like a little bitch. Columbine was the turning point as far as integrating all schools into the surveillance state, and that happened in 1999. Students have a better chance of being hit by a meteorite than to be shot at their school. Land of the free, what a joke.

Don, I suppose this is in response to my posts?

Again, no where did I mention schools need to "look like prisons" or the "little slaves" should have bio-chips implanted in them. I did say my local high school seems to have at least one cop in the parking lot at all times, when school is in session. I find nothing wrong with that. The cop is usually stationed outside the school, several hundred yards away from the students. Not only will the cop be available for a (one-in-a-million) major Columbine type event, but he can also help if, for example, some of the bused-in black students start fights with others or threaten teachers with their fists. Those events probably happen on a daily basis.




Tell you what, here's a question to posters here at CF: Suppose you have a young daughter (6 or 7) or close female relative (niece, ect.) that attends a grammar school in your town. How would you react if you saw a police car in the parking lot of her school?

A) Would you be "happy" that there is at least a modicum of protection at the school. Whether it be protecting against a very rare Newtown like attack or more mundane things -- some 10 year old kid bringing a knife to school or some whacked-out parent trying to bully teachers or the principal because his little thug was suspended?

B) Would you be "fearful" that the cop might "go postal" and start shooting the kids in the school?

C) Would you be "irate" because it's a waste of tax-payer cash or fear a single cop in the parking lot (hundreds of yards away from the building) would eventually lead to some sort of big brother, totalitarian type setting?

My pick, without a doubt, would be "A". Yours and others here my differ and I respect that.


By the way, I've known some people from Newtown, Connecticut. From what I gather, up until December 14th, the cops in the town basically did nothing all day, except hand out traffic tickets (speed, seat belts, ect.) because there was virtually no crime in a town that was well over 90% white. With that said, why would it be unwise for cops to be a closer to a school that has over 600 young children and more than 50 staff members?
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Don, I suppose this is in response to my posts?

Again, no where did I mention schools need to "look like prisons" or the "little slaves" should have bio-chips implanted in them. I did say my local high school seems to have at least one cop in the parking lot at all times, when school is in session. I find nothing wrong with that. The cop is usually stationed outside the school, several hundred yards away from the students. Not only will the cop be available for a (one-in-a-million) major Columbine type event, but he can also help if, for example, some of the bused-in black students start fights with others or threaten teachers with their fists. Those events probably happen on a daily basis.




Tell you what, here's a question to posters here at CF: Suppose you have a young daughter (6 or 7) or close female relative (niece, ect.) that attends a grammar school in your town. How would you react if you saw a police car in the parking lot of her school?

A) Would you be "happy" that there is at least a modicum of protection at the school. Whether it be protecting against a very rare Newtown like attack or more mundane things -- some 10 year old kid bringing a knife to school or some whacked-out parent trying to bully teachers or the principal because his little thug was suspended?

B) Would you be "fearful" that the cop might "go postal" and start shooting the kids in the school?

C) Would you be "irate" because it's a waste of tax-payer cash or fear a single cop in the parking lot (hundreds of yards away from the building) would eventually lead to some sort of big brother, totalitarian type setting?

My pick, without a doubt, would be "A". Yours and others here my differ and I respect that.


By the way, I've known some people from Newtown, Connecticut. From what I gather, up until December 14th, the cops in the town basically did nothing all day, except hand out traffic tickets (speed, seat belts, ect.) because there was virtually no crime in a town that was well over 90% white. With that said, why would it be unwise for cops to be a closer to a school that has over 600 young children and more than 50 staff members?

You're making a straw man argument. No one here denies that police prescense is a good thing if they are hanging around the parking lot or stopping by. The danger is to create some massive bureacracy that would put cops in force in every school in the country.

There are lots of schools, probably thousands that already have armed security and even things like metal detectors in them. They are there because events have already proven that those schools are at risk for needing that type of monitoring. Most schools do not. To insist that those schools that are not at risk become armed camps because of the freak incident at this one school is over reaction.
 
Top