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

[bripat9643]

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?

No. What I want is for schools to pay a few of the teachers an extra $5K or $10K each year to carry a concealed weapon and get 4 hours of training at the gun range each quarter.

Former SWAT team members, lie detector tests and psychological evaluations aren't necessary.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yeah, but making it illegal for Americans to arm themselves is a big step forward for freedom.

Only a true dolt would utter such a proposition.

 

[Charles_Main]

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?

Um, I would not be intimidated by them, no matter who they are. Do you have kids dude? I have a 5 and 6 year old, and currently they go to a school with almost no security. No Guards, No Buzzed in entry, if the secretary in the office which is offset from the front doors isn't looking, anyone could just walk right in.

So I have 2 dogs in this fight, and I want them protected. I don't want their best defense in a situation like we have seen recently, to be a teacher with a pair of fucking scissors. I want a trained, Professional with a glock there to put 2 into the face of the Perp and end it before any kids are hurt.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Gun advocates are recommending armed guards in schools because they see that as a better alternative for gun owners than gun control. Never mind that it would increase our taxes and make our schools look more like prisons than educational institutions as long it allows the public access to more and more powerful guns.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Yep, placing armed guards in all the schools is very Orwellian, I agree, however there is nothing sensible about banning high capacity magazines or assault-style rifles. It will accomplish absolutely nothing.

You don't have to choose between one extreme or the other, you know.

 

[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.

Gun advocates are recommending armed guards in schools because they see that as a better alternative for gun owners than gun control. Never mind that it would increase our taxes and make our schools look more like prisons than educational institutions as long it allows the public access to more and more powerful guns.

Do you realize that most inner city schools have and have had for years, armed guards?

 

[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.

Gun advocates are recommending armed guards in schools because they see that as a better alternative for gun owners than gun control. Never mind that it would increase our taxes and make our schools look more like prisons than educational institutions as long it allows the public access to more and more powerful guns.

Do you realize that most inner city schools have and have had for years, armed guards?

Of course they know it. They don't give a fuck about facts, just slinging mud.

 

[bripat9643]

Gun advocates are recommending armed guards in schools because they see that as a better alternative for gun owners than gun control. Never mind that it would increase our taxes and make our schools look more like prisons than educational institutions as long it allows the public access to more and more powerful guns.

Whenever a liberal starts complaining about the cost of some government policy, you know he's full of shit.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Gun advocates are recommending armed guards in schools because they see that as a better alternative for gun owners than gun control. Never mind that it would increase our taxes and make our schools look more like prisons than educational institutions as long it allows the public access to more and more powerful guns.

Do you realize that most inner city schools have and have had for years, armed guards?

So are you saying we should put guns in schools where we already have them? That's the kind of logic I would expect from the NRA.

 

[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?

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

Cops dont get a security clearance, only federal and military people do you idiot. Cops are subject to lie detectors, EVERY cop is at his hiring, to see if he has crimes hidden, to see if he does drugs, to see if he has pedophilia tendencies, and they are subjected to a thorough psych evaluation.

You're right, armed guards dont need a security clearance. So you'll get a $10 an hour fat ass who couldnt get a job with the military or police, who has almost no tactical or stress training, and may possibly be a pedophile or a felon who just hasnt been caught yet because he isnt subject to a lie detector.

OH AND GUESS WHAT ELSE...........

Since he is a private guard, and thus, has no arrest powers aside from a citizen's arrest (For felony and theft only) then he has absolutely no power to force someone to stop (trespassing and not following school rules is neither a felony or a theft) then someone can tell your "armed guard" to fuck off and and he cant do shit about it (Thats why people like malls and football games hire cops for work). OH AND....since he has no arrest authority, and no authority to do a search according to the 4th amendment exceptions, the first time your rent-a-cop tries to....well....be a cop, he'll get his ass kicked, and your precious school will get its ass sued, and then you'll have a broken school district that can now not afford a guard or a cop.

Dumbass.

 

[bucs90]

Just for the record, Im all for putting a cop in a school. But not a security guard, not for THIS purpose.

Yes, security guards have been in the inner city schools for a while. They mostly babysit a metal detector (BTW, how come no one is talking about metal detectors in schools????). They dont take action. Why? THEY DONT HAVE AUTHORITY TO. When they see something, they call the cops. Because they aren't cops.

But for the purpose of stopping an active suicidal shooter, do you want a $10 an hour fatass who couldnt get a job with the military or police, and who has not been put through a lie detector or psych eval like cops have to go through? Is THAT who you want in your school to protect you kids? OR, is the extra money to go ahead and hire some off duty cops worth it?

OR...how about this: Every state has a constable or reserve police program. We have so many ex-military guys out there. Get them sworn in, deputized, and let them man the schools if they want.

But I bet people aren't willing to work for free...not for too long. Right now its emotional. But what happens in 4 years when things have calmed down and people are worried about other shit?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

Lots of cops carry AR-15's in their cars after that bank robbery in Los Angeles.

M-16's are no longer full auto.

 

[Charles_Main]

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?

Lots of cops carry AR-15's in their cars after that bank robbery in Los Angeles.

M-16's are no longer full auto.

Both the AR-15 and the M-16, Which are essentially the same gun, Can easily be modified to fire Full Auto. But why would you want to? Both are much more accurate, and deadly in single fire, or 3 round burst mode.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Just for the record, Im all for putting a cop in a school. But not a security guard, not for THIS purpose.

Yes, security guards have been in the inner city schools for a while. They mostly babysit a metal detector (BTW, how come no one is talking about metal detectors in schools????). They dont take action. Why? THEY DONT HAVE AUTHORITY TO. When they see something, they call the cops. Because they aren't cops.

Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief

 

[Charles_Main]

Gun advocates are recommending armed guards in schools because they see that as a better alternative for gun owners than gun control. Never mind that it would increase our taxes and make our schools look more like prisons than educational institutions as long it allows the public access to more and more powerful guns.

Do you realize that most inner city schools have and have had for years, armed guards?

So are you saying we should put guns in schools where we already have them? That's the kind of logic I would expect from the NRA.

Wow you are dense. No, were saying if it works in inner cities, why not everywhere.

 

[bucs90]

^^^

Yep, you guys are both right. The LA shootout turned the culture of LE to carry these guns. And the M16 and AR15 are 99.9% the same gun, just 1 extra function in the M16.

But, as scary as they look, for cops they are life savers. A cop (or anyone) under stress and taking return fire is going to be only moderately accurate with a pistol at 10 yards and more. The AR15 is extremely accurate, and the risk of missing and hitting an innocent person is greatly reduced when they are used over a pistol. Thats why the military uses them, and the pistol is only a backup weapon.

If I was in a mall, and a shootout broke out, I'd feel far safer is the cops used AR15s. I know they'd be far more accurate than with a pistol.

 

[rdean]

They're just telling us what they will do the next time they get into office.

 

[OKTexas]

Just for the record, Im all for putting a cop in a school. But not a security guard, not for THIS purpose.

Yes, security guards have been in the inner city schools for a while. They mostly babysit a metal detector (BTW, how come no one is talking about metal detectors in schools????). They dont take action. Why? THEY DONT HAVE AUTHORITY TO. When they see something, they call the cops. Because they aren't cops.

But for the purpose of stopping an active suicidal shooter, do you want a $10 an hour fatass who couldnt get a job with the military or police, and who has not been put through a lie detector or psych eval like cops have to go through? Is THAT who you want in your school to protect you kids? OR, is the extra money to go ahead and hire some off duty cops worth it?

OR...how about this: Every state has a constable or reserve police program. We have so many ex-military guys out there. Get them sworn in, deputized, and let them man the schools if they want.

But I bet people aren't willing to work for free...not for too long. Right now its emotional. But what happens in 4 years when things have calmed down and people are worried about other shit?

See post #26.

 

[bucs90]

Just for the record, Im all for putting a cop in a school. But not a security guard, not for THIS purpose.

Yes, security guards have been in the inner city schools for a while. They mostly babysit a metal detector (BTW, how come no one is talking about metal detectors in schools????). They dont take action. Why? THEY DONT HAVE AUTHORITY TO. When they see something, they call the cops. Because they aren't cops.

Armed guard disarmed teen in Atlanta school shooting, says police chief

You mean an armed COP, yes, COP, not a fucking security guard, stopped the attack: Police: Teen shot by fellow student at Ga. school - Yahoo! News

An armed, off duty COP, yep, an evil government employee, stopped the attack. Get it right.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Just for the record, Im all for putting a cop in a school. But not a security guard, not for THIS purpose.

Yes, security guards have been in the inner city schools for a while. They mostly babysit a metal detector (BTW, how come no one is talking about metal detectors in schools????). They dont take action. Why? THEY DONT HAVE AUTHORITY TO. When they see something, they call the cops. Because they aren't cops.

But for the purpose of stopping an active suicidal shooter, do you want a $10 an hour fatass who couldnt get a job with the military or police, and who has not been put through a lie detector or psych eval like cops have to go through? Is THAT who you want in your school to protect you kids? OR, is the extra money to go ahead and hire some off duty cops worth it?

OR...how about this: Every state has a constable or reserve police program. We have so many ex-military guys out there. Get them sworn in, deputized, and let them man the schools if they want.

But I bet people aren't willing to work for free...not for too long. Right now its emotional. But what happens in 4 years when things have calmed down and people are worried about other shit?

Judging by the performance of New York's finest recently, (9 innocent bystanders shot) I think I'll take the $10 an hour fatass...