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

[Skull Pilot]

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 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.

I want people to feel intimidated so they won't even think about robbing my home or business.

 

[Politico]

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.

That was some funny shit.

 

[Clementine]

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.

While the battle goes on as to how to keep children in schools safe, I wish they'd start locking the doors during school hours, so people can't just walk in off the street.

It's like the Dems aren't willing to start with common sense solutions and instead focus on restricting arms for the law abiding. Of course, for the Obama children, common sense dictates that armed guards be present at all times. Our children are a different story.

As far as stopping a person intending to shoot you, I don't know what the libs suggest. Running at them with a pair of scissors doesn't sound too smart. And running away isn't too effective since bullets are faster. I know, why don't the libs start teaching children to run in a zig zag pattern, thus making themselves more difficult targets. Or just lock the fucking doors already and have guards, armed or not, on duty to decide whether a person should be allowed in. If they see the crazy eyes, of course they shouldn't let them in.

When any lib can explain how restricting guns for those who actually follow laws will stop criminals, I'll listen.

Meanwhile, our own government decides not to follow our immigration laws. I guess when you're a dictator, you get to pick and choose which laws you want to follow. The rest of us are at the mercy of the dictator.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

We don't WANT armed guards anywhere, but we recognize that, in order to protect the most vulnerable, we occasionally need them.
Liberals claim having armed guards in schools will frighten the children. Sorry, that is idiocy, unless the kids have been raised to fear police. Even then, would you rather your child be frightened by a guard there to protect them, or a crazy 20 year old that wants to kill their whole class?

 

[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.

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.

So, if a couple of armed guards walk up to you and start questioning you in a public place because they're specifically there to protect the general public from possible threats and crime, you wouldn't feel intimidated by that or them as long as they weren't working for the federal gov't? A local or state guard would be fine with you? And if he asked for your name and ID because he thought that perhaps there was something suspicious about you or that you reminded him of a description of a suspect (height, age, hair length/color, general clothing) he had previously read about prior to going on duty, you wouldn't feel like he was stepping on your freedoms?

 

[OKTexas]

I don't worry about an armed guard every where I go because I am armed most every where I go. I have 26 years military experience and there are millions out there like me. I have passed stringent background checks and polygraphs in my time and would be willing to volunteer time to my local schools if asked. There are solutions that don't require federal involvement.

 

[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.

We don't WANT armed guards anywhere, but we recognize that, in order to protect the most vulnerable, we occasionally need them.
Liberals claim having armed guards in schools will frighten the children. Sorry, that is idiocy, unless the kids have been raised to fear police. Even then, would you rather your child be frightened by a guard there to protect them, or a crazy 20 year old that wants to kill their whole class?

Everyone is vulnerable unless they're behind bullet proof glass.

Now, thanks to certain conservatives, the argument has been made that we can ALL be safer everywhere we go as long as there are armed guards there to protect us. By careful for what you wish for.

 

[Mustang]

I don't worry about an armed guard every where I go because I am armed most every where I go. I have 26 years military experience and there are millions out there like me. I have passed stringent background checks and polygraphs in my time and would be willing to volunteer time to my local schools if asked. There are solutions that don't require federal involvement.

People like you will probably be the first to be shot. The explanation will go something like this:

They way you were walking led the guards to believe that you were a potential threat. And when they approached you to ask you a few questions, they noticed a bulge in your jacket. And when they told you to freeze, you moved a little too fast, and they felt compelled to protect themselves and others in the area which was exactly why they were there. If you had only behaved differently, the outcome would have been different.
​

See how that works?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 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.

Armed guards in schools is idiocy contrived by the right in an effort to give the appearance of being concerned about gun violence and putting forth a ‘solution.’

 

[eflatminor]

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?

Quite.

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

Right, and after that Hollywood shootout, the LAPD acquired full automatic rifles. You said "they bitch about tyranny and a police state when the police try to match firepower", but you have yet to back that up with any evidence.

Regardless of the few examples you cited, the use of fully automatic firearms in crime in statistically tiny, way less than 1%.

Lastly, why did you avoid addressing my question? How do you suggest a law abiding citizen face armed thugs...with a big gun?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

So, if a couple of armed guards walk up to you and start questioning you in a public place because they're specifically there to protect the general public from possible threats and crime, you wouldn't feel intimidated by that or them as long as they weren't working for the federal gov't? A local or state guard would be fine with you? And if he asked for your name and ID because he thought that perhaps there was something suspicious about you or that you reminded him of a description of a suspect (height, age, hair length/color, general clothing) he had previously read about prior to going on duty, you wouldn't feel like he was stepping on your freedoms?

If this happened to me, I might be put off a bit, but if it was at a grammar school where my grandkids went, I'd be happy as hell that there was someone that would confront the next Adam Lanza. But you would rather we sacrifice another.... how many kids so no student feels threatened by a good guy with a gun?

 

[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.

Armed guards in schools is idiocy contrived by the right in an effort to give the appearance of being concerned about gun violence and putting forth a ‘solution.’

The solution also has the added benefit to the gun industry of helping to sell more guns. It will probably even be tax deductible as a business expense.

 

[eflatminor]

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 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.

Armed guards in schools is idiocy contrived by the right in an effort to give the appearance of being concerned about gun violence and putting forth a ‘solution.’

Seemed to be an effective solution in Atlanta the other day.

Regardless, what I find idiotic is the notion of passing laws that only serve to ensure law abiding citizens are put at a disadvantage when facing armed thugs that don't give a shit about your regulations. Now THAT'S an idiotic non-solution.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

We don't WANT armed guards anywhere, but we recognize that, in order to protect the most vulnerable, we occasionally need them.
Liberals claim having armed guards in schools will frighten the children. Sorry, that is idiocy, unless the kids have been raised to fear police. Even then, would you rather your child be frightened by a guard there to protect them, or a crazy 20 year old that wants to kill their whole class?

Everyone is vulnerable unless they're behind bullet proof glass.

Now, thanks to certain conservatives, the argument has been made that we can ALL be safer everywhere we go as long as there are armed guards there to protect us. By careful for what you wish for.

I know exactly what you're saying. On some level I agree whole heartedly. I hate seat belts and motorcycle helmets.
The fact remains there are going to be more Columbines and Sandy Hooks. How do you propose we prevent the inevitable?

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't worry about an armed guard every where I go because I am armed most every where I go. I have 26 years military experience and there are millions out there like me. I have passed stringent background checks and polygraphs in my time and would be willing to volunteer time to my local schools if asked. There are solutions that don't require federal involvement.

People like you will probably be the first to be shot. The explanation will go something like this:

They way you were walking led the guards to believe that you were a potential threat. And when they approached you to ask you a few questions, they noticed a bulge in your jacket. And when they told you to freeze, you moved a little too fast, and they felt compelled to protect themselves and others in the area which was exactly why they were there. If you had only behaved differently, the outcome would have been different.
​

See how that works?

Sure! That's even less likely than the next school shooting you don't want to try to prevent.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't worry about an armed guard every where I go because I am armed most every where I go. I have 26 years military experience and there are millions out there like me. I have passed stringent background checks and polygraphs in my time and would be willing to volunteer time to my local schools if asked. There are solutions that don't require federal involvement.

People like you will probably be the first to be shot. The explanation will go something like this:

They way you were walking led the guards to believe that you were a potential threat. And when they approached you to ask you a few questions, they noticed a bulge in your jacket. And when they told you to freeze, you moved a little too fast, and they felt compelled to protect themselves and others in the area which was exactly why they were there. If you had only behaved differently, the outcome would have been different.
​

See how that works?

I see you have no grasp of reality, all CHL holders know when you interact with police the first thing you do is tell them you are armed and if they can see a bulge in your jacket you don't have your weapon properly concealed. Ya see how that works?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The guards aren't there to enforce Obama's tyrannical agenda, moron. They are guards. Libturds don't seem to understand the distinction between a guard and the KGB. Do you feel oppressed when you see an armed guard in your local bank?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Armed guards don't nee a security clearance, moron.

 

[OKTexas]

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 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.

Armed guards in schools is idiocy contrived by the right in an effort to give the appearance of being concerned about gun violence and putting forth a ‘solution.’

Contrived by the right, is that why Clinton did it years ago?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The other places you list aren't "gun free zones." That's why we don't see mass shootings in those locations. So, no, the solution does not be expanded to the other locations you listed. The solution is already in place in those locations in any state that allows concealed carry.

Definition of "gun free zone:" target rich environment.