Conservatives who warn of tyranny and a police state want armed guards everywhere?

[Mustang]

When it comes to conservative partisans, their hypocrisy angers me. It's constant. So, it's not as if you have to try to find it like you're on a scavenger hunt.

But the blatant contradictions of conflicting fears is actually kind of comical.

Everyone, I'm sure has heard the NRA's proposed solution to school shootings of placing armed guards in all schools. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that kind of a solutions lends itself to armed guards being stationed in increasing numbers of public places in order to assure that they're safe (if you believe the NRA contention that more guns make people safer).

Well, I knew it was just a matter of time until some public figure publicly embraced armed guards being placed everywhere. I heard it today in my car on a short drive when Mike Gallagher advocated it.

Now, for ALL those conservatives who worry about a police state, and tyranny, and an erosion of freedoms, how is it that this kind of solution that advocates placing armed guards (probably licensed by the state, and maybe even working for the state) in increasing numbers of public places (along with the idea that surveillance cameras should be placed in more public places) doesn't bother you MORE than a few sensible gun restrictions?

You want to talk about a loss of freedom and the potential for gov't having TOO MUCH power over the people, placing armed guards in more public places should worry you more than increased background checks and limiting the availability of high capacity magazines and/or assault-style semiautomatic rifles.

The only question at this point is how long it will be before someone on the right postulates that this was the "liberal plan" to take away the rights of citizens all along.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why do the armed guards have to be provided by the state?

When i was bumming around South America in my youth every business had armed guards watching their doors at night and from what I could see none of them were employed by the government. And I doubt if any of those places were ever robbed

 

[Mustang]

Why do the armed guards have to be provided by the state?

When i was bumming around South America in my youth every business had armed guards watching their doors at night and from what I could see none of them were employed by the government. And I doubt if any of those places were ever robbed

I didn't say that they all would be provided by the state. But you can darn well believe that they'll have to be licensed by the state. And if and when they're on gov't property, they will either be state employees or contracted for BY the state.

But there will be plenty of people who will want to hire trained professionals as opposed to the ubiquitous 'mall cops' we've come to know over the years.

Time and the human propensity to get more bang for the buck out of the investment of this expenditure in the hope of preventing more crime in general would only serve to give the people who hire these 'armed guards' (who are supposedly there for the protection of the general public) more reason to train these guards to spot suspicious behavior among the general public that they're supposedly protecting -- all in the name of protecting the general public.

 

[bucs90]

Its hilarious.

They claim that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. They say that a bad man with a BIG gun can only be stopped by a good man with a BIG or bigger gun.

BUT....they bitch about tyranny and a police state when the police try to match firepower with the bad guys running around our country with AK47's.

It would be comical if not so sad.

 

[asaratis]

The suggestion by NRA is to place armed guards at schools...not everywhere. We have armed guards elsewhere in the form of policemen who patrol the streets in uniform and as undercover agents.

The schools, being recognized as "gun free zones" lend themselves to shooters now and then. The armed guards would likely decrease the number of victims by taking out the shooter early in his rampage...or might even prevent the whole thing by recognizing a suspicious person and checking him out.

Who employs the guards is not as important as how well the guards are trained and equipped. A guard with a S&W six shot revolver will be no match for a loon with an AR-15 30-shot clip. The guard needs to have armor vest and lots of firepower and radios that can talk to the local police...plus lots of savvy.

I visualize new companies arising from this.

 

[eflatminor]

When it comes to conservative partisans, their hypocrisy angers me. It's constant.

Yea...thank goodness we never see that from the Left...

As to the rest of your rant, how about private property owners provide their own security and if a public institution wishes to do so, let that be the community's choice?

 

[bucs90]

There are several reasons why they need to be government employees and not just private security.

HERE:

1- Only police departments and government jobs sensitive to security can (military, FBI, etc) can put a person through a lie detector for condition of employment. Thats a labor law. So, if you put a man with a gun in a school, and he is a govt employee, to get hired he must submit to a lie detector and psych evaluation. A private security guard does not.

2- Read #1 over again. Need we go any further?

 

[g5000]

I guess people who want guards in schools must have gotten the idea from the TSA.

And of course any school guards would be public employees. Thousands and thousands and thousands of fat, overpaid, armed union thugs, prowling the hallways of our schools, earning great pensions paid for by the taxpayers.

Great plan.

Then the next crazed shooter will just attack a nursery school, or a mall, or a school bus. And so we will demand guards in nursery schools, and malls, and on school buses. After all, we have them in our schools, so why not?

 

[asaratis]

Its hilarious.

They claim that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. They say that a bad man with a BIG gun can only be stopped by a good man with a BIG or bigger gun.

BUT....they bitch about tyranny and a police state when the police try to match firepower with the bad guys running around our country with AK47's.

It would be comical if not so sad.

Do you have any legitimate proof of this malarkey? I don't recall seeing anything on this.

Everybody should be able to have an AK47 if they so choose. You can't keep the criminals from having them so why restrict anybody?

 

[Mustang]

The suggestion by NRA is to place armed guards at schools...not everywhere. We have armed guards elsewhere in the form of policemen who patrol the streets in uniform and as undercover agents.

The schools, being recognized as "gun free zones" lend themselves to shooters now and then. The armed guards would likely decrease the number of victims by taking out the shooter early in his rampage...or might even prevent the whole thing by recognizing a suspicious person and checking him out.

Who employs the guards is not as important as how well the guards are trained and equipped. A guard with a S&W six shot revolver will be no match for a loon with an AR-15 30-shot clip. The guard needs to have armor vest and lots of firepower and radios that can talk to the local police...plus lots of savvy.

I visualize new companies arising from this.

This is a classic example of a slippery slope. If the rationale for armed guards in school is because shooters go to places where there are plenty of innocent victims, and then schools become armed camps, doesn't it stand to reason that shooters will concentrate on other places? Public places? Rec Centers? Businesses? Offices etc?

Once the solution has been implemented (assuming it is), then it only stands to reason that expanding the solution to other areas is equally valid as an argument. And once armed guards are in increasing numbers of places, what do you think the chances are of reversing that decision?

Keep in mind that Obama has recently extended warrantless wiretaps and other expansions of gov't power (and some would say a suspension of Constitutional rights) initiated under Bush.

 

[bucs90]

The suggestion by NRA is to place armed guards at schools...not everywhere. We have armed guards elsewhere in the form of policemen who patrol the streets in uniform and as undercover agents.

The schools, being recognized as "gun free zones" lend themselves to shooters now and then. The armed guards would likely decrease the number of victims by taking out the shooter early in his rampage...or might even prevent the whole thing by recognizing a suspicious person and checking him out.

Who employs the guards is not as important as how well the guards are trained and equipped. A guard with a S&W six shot revolver will be no match for a loon with an AR-15 30-shot clip. The guard needs to have armor vest and lots of firepower and radios that can talk to the local police...plus lots of savvy.

I visualize new companies arising from this.

So....you want a "savvy" armed security guard, trained and proficient with an M4 rifle, courageous, street smart, accurate, quick to act.

All for the $10 an hour that private security guards get?

HAHA!! Yeah right, good luck. You'll get a fat dude who cant get any other job, who the cops and military wouldnt accept, who DREAMS of getting to shoot someone......or, some loser who cant find another job and is scared shitless and will run away the first time he hears a shot.


How about just hire an off-duty cop, a SWAT cop, who is trained in all that stuff already. Yep. Cops work off-duty all the time. Hire one of them, in uniform, with all the training he already has. PLUS...being a govt employee, he is among the few people subjected to a lie detector to be hired, along with a psych evaluation.

But THEN, with body armor, an M4 rifle, a steely, hardened street smart sense about him........right wingers will call him an overbearing tyrant soldier-wannabe.


So, which is it?

 

[bucs90]

Its hilarious.

They claim that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. They say that a bad man with a BIG gun can only be stopped by a good man with a BIG or bigger gun.

BUT....they bitch about tyranny and a police state when the police try to match firepower with the bad guys running around our country with AK47's.

It would be comical if not so sad.

Do you have any legitimate proof of this malarkey? I don't recall seeing anything on this.

Everybody should be able to have an AK47 if they so choose. You can't keep the criminals from having them so why restrict anybody?

Yes, the attack against the "militarization" of the police is widespread, on both sides, but lately from the right.

Would you be OK with your local cops carrying an AK47 in their cars? What about the SWAT teams carrying fully-automatic M16's? You ok with that?

If the military is so great and honorable and awesome and noble and all that.........then whats wrong with the police trying to model themselves after the men and women who do it best already?

 

[eflatminor]

Its hilarious.

I would say the issue of security is not a funny one, but, different strokes I guess...

They claim that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

That or wait for the bad man to kill himself. How do you suggest a bad guy with a gun be stopped?

They say that a bad man with a BIG gun can only be stopped by a good man with a BIG or bigger gun.

Sounds like you advocate the idea that criminals should possess superior firepower to the law abiding citizens that may have to stand against these thugs. That's seems odd to me.

BUT....they bitch about tyranny and a police state when the police try to match firepower with the bad guys running around our country with AK47's.

Who's "they"? Assuring police are adequately armed does not mean on advocates tyranny or a police state...unless of course the people are restricted from possessing the same arms.

Lastly, I think you're being dis-ingenuous when you state "bad guys running around with AK47s". First, no body has an actual assault style AK, which requires full auto capability. Secondly, even if you mis-categorize semi auto rifles as "assault weapons", they are used in an extremely low percentage of crime. For example, in 2001 the Bureau of Justice Statistics measured the use of semi auto rifles (those banned as assault weapons) in crime in the state of New Jersey. They found so called assault weapons were used in 0.026 of 1% of crimes.

Hardly the picture you've painted.

 

[tjvh]

Its hilarious.

They claim that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. They say that a bad man with a BIG gun can only be stopped by a good man with a BIG or bigger gun.

BUT....they bitch about tyranny and a police state when the police try to match firepower with the bad guys running around our country with AK47's.

It would be comical if not so sad.

Unlike our Government who believes you should use scissors to stop an armed shooter.

 

[Mustang]

I guess people who want guards in schools must have gotten the idea from the TSA.

And of course any school guards would be public employees. Thousands and thousands and thousands of fat, overpaid, armed union thugs, prowling the hallways of our schools, earning great pensions paid for by the taxpayers.

Great plan.

Then the next crazed shooter will just attack a nursery school, or a mall, or a school bus. And so we will demand guards in nursery schools, and malls, and on school buses. After all, we have them in our schools, so why not?

Aardvark Ratnik strikes again.

 

[bucs90]

Its hilarious.

Lastly, I think you're being dis-ingenuous when you state "bad guys running around with AK47s". First, no body has an actual assault style AK, which requires full auto capability. Secondly, even if you mis-categorize semi auto rifles as "assault weapons", they are used in an extremely low percentage of crime. For example, in 2001 the Bureau of Justice Statistics measured the use of semi auto rifles (those banned as assault weapons) in crime in the state of New Jersey. They found so called assault weapons were used in 0.026 of 1% of crimes.

Hardly the picture you've painted.

Are you serious? You must have missed the North Hollywood shootout, 2 men with full auto AK's lighting up LAPD, when LAPD was very outgunned. Or the Rock Hill, SC (Charlotte area) bank robbery, where the RHPD was fighting a full auto AK with a bunch of Glock pistols. Those are the first two that come to mind. But there are countless incidents of cops facing off with people who have fully automatic weapons. Check Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP). You'll see quite a few over the years who have been killed by full auto AK's. The drug cartels from our wide open borders have full auto AK's. AND...it doenst take much to make a semi AK an auto AK.

The "picture" I've painted is reality. In fact, the average citizen would be shocked if they saw/heard/knew the reality of what happens all around them after dark on the streets they never go down.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why do the armed guards have to be provided by the state?

When i was bumming around South America in my youth every business had armed guards watching their doors at night and from what I could see none of them were employed by the government. And I doubt if any of those places were ever robbed

I didn't say that they all would be provided by the state. But you can darn well believe that they'll have to be licensed by the state. And if and when they're on gov't property, they will either be state employees or contracted for BY the state.

But there will be plenty of people who will want to hire trained professionals as opposed to the ubiquitous 'mall cops' we've come to know over the years.

Time and the human propensity to get more bang for the buck out of the investment of this expenditure in the hope of preventing more crime in general would only serve to give the people who hire these 'armed guards' (who are supposedly there for the protection of the general public) more reason to train these guards to spot suspicious behavior among the general public that they're supposedly protecting -- all in the name of protecting the general public.

Why do armed guards have to protect the "general public"?

Armed guard are supposed to protect what they are hired to protect. Some will protect private property, private citizens etc from the general public.

 

[Missourian]

I'm saying if the teachers and administrators want to arm themselves, the state and federal government should allow that...if the state and federal government wish to require additional training for those school employees who want the option of defending themselves and their students...that is understandable.

I don't want armed guards...I want the bad guys to be forced to assume every adult employee is armed...even if the reality is only one...or even none are.

The PERCEPTION is more important than the reality.

Today, the gun fee zone designation guarantees NO law abiding citizen will be in a position to mount a defense against an armed gunman with more than the laughable DHS approved scissors and stapler.

 

[Charles_Main]

When it comes to conservative partisans, their hypocrisy angers me. It's constant. So, it's not as if you have to try to find it like you're on a scavenger hunt.

But the blatant contradictions of conflicting fears is actually kind of comical.

Everyone, I'm sure has heard the NRA's proposed solution to school shootings of placing armed guards in all schools. Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that kind of a solutions lends itself to armed guards being stationed in increasing numbers of public places in order to assure that they're safe (if you believe the NRA contention that more guns make people safer).

Well, I knew it was just a matter of time until some public figure publicly embraced armed guards being placed everywhere. I heard it today in my car on a short drive when Mike Gallagher advocated it.

Now, for ALL those conservatives who worry about a police state, and tyranny, and an erosion of freedoms, how is it that this kind of solution that advocates placing armed guards (probably licensed by the state, and maybe even working for the state) in increasing numbers of public places (along with the idea that surveillance cameras should be placed in more public places) doesn't bother you MORE than a few sensible gun restrictions?

You want to talk about a loss of freedom and the potential for gov't having TOO MUCH power over the people, placing armed guards in more public places should worry you more than increased background checks and limiting the availability of high capacity magazines and/or assault-style semiautomatic rifles.

The only question at this point is how long it will be before someone on the right postulates that this was the "liberal plan" to take away the rights of citizens all along.

Were not talking about armed FEDS in our schools dip shit. Were talking about local Cops, and Local Government doing what we want and protecting our Children.

 

[Mustang]

Its hilarious.

They claim that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. They say that a bad man with a BIG gun can only be stopped by a good man with a BIG or bigger gun.

BUT....they bitch about tyranny and a police state when the police try to match firepower with the bad guys running around our country with AK47's.

It would be comical if not so sad.

Just once, I wish conservatives would give some thought to the ramifications of their proposed solutions before they enthusiastically jumped on the band wagon to support it. The idea of armed guards in more and more places may be a good thing for gun manufacturers, but it's a terrible idea for the concept of freedom because I guarantee you that people are not going to like seeing heavily armed guards every place they go. People will understandably feel intimidated.