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

[asaratis]

The Waco compound had armed guards.

Pity they didn't have tanks!

 

[healthmyths]

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.

ONe of the FIRST clues of idiocy are the following phrases..
As Obama said "ALL THE TIME" and this idiotic topic "EVERYWHERE"!!!!

When will smart people learn that NOTHING IS ALL THE TIME ! The SAME with "EVERYWHERE!!!

Exaggeration sells I KNOW... but it also means most people discount everything they hear/read as baloney!

Maybe more people would come to an understanding that like Obama who said..

Obama said in his own words... his book "Dreams of My Father"
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed. Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem
angry all the time."
Now where did I hear that phrase "all the time"???? OH RIGHT Obama shoots SKEET ALL THE TIME!!!

and now your idiocy.."EVERYWHERE" grow up kids! We are adults and we don't speak WAH-WAH.. whining language as adults!

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Waco compound had armed guards.

Pity they didn't have tanks!

Pity that they didn't have Kool-aid

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives who warn of tyranny and a police state exhibit their idiocy by that moronic statement alone, regardless their position on armed guards in schools.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Since when does a private armed guard have the right to question anyone?

And in my state concealed carry means that no outwardly visible sign of a weapon can be present.

And people only use shoulder holsters on TV

 

[candycorn]

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.

And of course, the same ones worried about the government forcibly removing their guns at bayonet-point are the ones who would rather eat a shit sandwich before they contemplate cutting the military budget.

Go figure.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And of course, the same ones worried about the government forcibly removing their guns at bayonet-point are the ones who would rather eat a shit sandwich before they contemplate cutting the military budget.

Go figure.

Yep, a big hypocrisy of today's conservatives. They claim to worship at the altar of small government, yet back the militant police state and American imperialism at every curve.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Conservatives who warn of tyranny and a police state exhibit their idiocy by that moronic statement alone

It's only an idiotic position to someone completely ignorant of human history. Maybe you should get your nose out of the law books for awhile and read some 19th and 20th century world history.

 

[Mustang]

The world that a lot of conservatives seem to want, exists. I live 30 miles from Mexico. I cross the border regularly. As soon as one does that, one is confronted with pickup trucks loaded with federales, each of who is carrying an assault rifle. They are virtually everywhere. Sometimes, they set up check points and stop anyone driving down that street. They also have public shootouts with drug cartel members, which often involve 10 or more people gunned down in the street.

The answer to the gun problem is not more guns. It is less guns.

No one makes you carry a gun. If you don't like them, don't use them. You have no right to regulate my property or tell me what I need.

The government does that every day. Nobody is going to take your guns. Nobody is going to ban gun sales. They have already made it illegal for you to buy a grenade launcher and a land mine. Control advocates just want some common sense regulations. Armor piercing ammo is specificly designed to kill cops and military. We don't need it on the streets.

Common sense regulations. No wonder it doesn't make any sense to conservatives. Or perhaps the answer is more cynical than that. Perhaps the reason why all these Chicken Little scare tactics have emerged from the RW to derail new regulation is because what's being proposed IS common sense. And ginning up irrational fear is the only way they think they can defeat it, because using common sense reasoning is not bolstering their arguments in the least.

 

[Flopper]

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 would they have to be licensed by the state?

Because it's the state?

Has anyone considered what these guards or police are going to do in a 100,000 schools throughout the country? They're going to stand by a door and watch students enter and leave the school year after year. With no mad gun to defend against, they will be assigned other duties in schools dealing with truancy, break-ins, interfacing with police and parents on JD issues and their presence will provide little if any additional protection.

 

[rdean]

 

[Skull Pilot]

It figures you'd like musicals

 

[OKTexas]

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 would they have to be licensed by the state?

Because it's the state?

Has anyone considered what these guards or police are going to do in a 100,000 schools throughout the country? They're going to stand by a door and watch students enter and leave the school year after year. With no mad gun to defend against, they will be assigned other duties in schools dealing with truancy, break-ins, interfacing with police and parents on JD issues and their presence will provide little if any additional protection.

Bad guys tend to go to places they don't think they will be opposed, just the knowledge there is an armed person or persons in a particular place is in itself a deterrent. The Oregon mall shooter killed himself as soon as he encountered an armed citizen, who never fired a shot.

 

[Charles_Main]

Why would they have to be licensed by the state?

Because it's the state?

Has anyone considered what these guards or police are going to do in a 100,000 schools throughout the country? They're going to stand by a door and watch students enter and leave the school year after year. With no mad gun to defend against, they will be assigned other duties in schools dealing with truancy, break-ins, interfacing with police and parents on JD issues and their presence will provide little if any additional protection.

Bad guys tend to go to places they don't think they will be opposed, just the knowledge there is an armed person or persons in a particular place is in itself a deterrent. The Oregon mall shooter killed himself as soon as he encountered an armed citizen, who never fired a shot.

You are trying to reason with the irrational. The truth is most mad, Mass killer types, are at their cores cowards, that is why they pick places like schools, where they don't expect resistance, to carry out their evil deeds.

 

[Mustang]

Why would they have to be licensed by the state?

Because it's the state?

Has anyone considered what these guards or police are going to do in a 100,000 schools throughout the country? They're going to stand by a door and watch students enter and leave the school year after year. With no mad gun to defend against, they will be assigned other duties in schools dealing with truancy, break-ins, interfacing with police and parents on JD issues and their presence will provide little if any additional protection.

Bad guys tend to go to places they don't think they will be opposed, just the knowledge there is an armed person or persons in a particular place is in itself a deterrent. The Oregon mall shooter killed himself as soon as he encountered an armed citizen, who never fired a shot.

You're attempting to attribute rational thought to people who may very well be wholly irrational by the time they commit these acts. Furthermore, many of the men who commit these acts aren't planning a getaway. They fully expect (and even plan) to die in the process. Whether someone is there with a gun or not is not going to keep them from showing up. They would likely just target that person first.

 

[madeinjapan]

Has anyone considered what these guards or police are going to do in a 100,000 schools throughout the country? They're going to stand by a door and watch students enter and leave the school year after year. With no mad gun to defend against, they will be assigned other duties in schools dealing with truancy, break-ins, interfacing with police and parents on JD issues and their presence will provide little if any additional protection.

Bad guys tend to go to places they don't think they will be opposed, just the knowledge there is an armed person or persons in a particular place is in itself a deterrent. The Oregon mall shooter killed himself as soon as he encountered an armed citizen, who never fired a shot.

You are trying to reason with the irrational. The truth is most mad, Mass killer types, are at their cores cowards, that is why they pick places like schools, where they don't expect resistance, to carry out their evil deeds.

the choice of schools is not random. the killers all have some sort of relationship to the school or to people at the school. unless there was an armed person in every classroom, it's not likely that deaths could have been prevented.

 

[Flopper]

Bad guys tend to go to places they don't think they will be opposed, just the knowledge there is an armed person or persons in a particular place is in itself a deterrent. The Oregon mall shooter killed himself as soon as he encountered an armed citizen, who never fired a shot.

You are trying to reason with the irrational. The truth is most mad, Mass killer types, are at their cores cowards, that is why they pick places like schools, where they don't expect resistance, to carry out their evil deeds.

the choice of schools is not random. the killers all have some sort of relationship to the school or to people at the school. unless there was an armed person in every classroom, it's not likely that deaths could have been prevented.

Your absolutely right. Almost all student attacks come from past and current students.

Last year there were 37 deaths due to gun shots in public and private k-12 and post secondary schools in 2012, 7 in 2011, and 8 in 2010 If you exclude suicides and accidents, you're much more likely to die from lightening strikes than a mad gunman. We might just save more lives by putting more lightening arrestors in our schools. Of all the ways we could spend millions to protect our children, putting security guards in all schools would be one of the least effective.


Your Chances of Being Killed in a Lightning Strike - Life Insurance Today | Life Insurance Today
List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bucs90]

Once year after year after year goes by, the public outrage will shrink. Those armed guards will be costing tax payer money. And right wingers will be bitching about having to pay their by-God tax dollar towards the salary and benefits of a fat armed guard who does nothing but babysit a door.

 

[eflatminor]

Once year after year after year goes by, the public outrage will shrink. Those armed guards will be costing tax payer money. And right wingers will be bitching about having to pay their by-God tax dollar towards the salary and benefits of a fat armed guard who does nothing but babysit a door.

Then the citizens of that particular community are free to fire the guard. What's your point?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Has anyone considered what these guards or police are going to do in a 100,000 schools throughout the country? They're going to stand by a door and watch students enter and leave the school year after year. With no mad gun to defend against, they will be assigned other duties in schools dealing with truancy, break-ins, interfacing with police and parents on JD issues and their presence will provide little if any additional protection.

Bad guys tend to go to places they don't think they will be opposed, just the knowledge there is an armed person or persons in a particular place is in itself a deterrent. The Oregon mall shooter killed himself as soon as he encountered an armed citizen, who never fired a shot.

You're attempting to attribute rational thought to people who may very well be wholly irrational by the time they commit these acts. Furthermore, many of the men who commit these acts aren't planning a getaway. They fully expect (and even plan) to die in the process. Whether someone is there with a gun or not is not going to keep them from showing up. They would likely just target that person first.

When I was 5 or 6, I wanted to be Roy Rogers or Hopalong Cassidy, so my parents would give me 6 shooter cap pistols in fancy holsters for Christmas. I grew up. Then came the era of Rambo movies, and kids all wanted to be commandos with automatic rifles. The industry responded by producing the AR-15, which is now selling for about $2,500, if you can get on the waiting list and put down a deposit. Now, this weapon has no practical use whatsoever, when it comes to hunting, and any bolt action 30-06 will out shoot it on the range, but a bolt action 30-06 does NOT make the owner look and feel like a genuine bad-ass army commando. I see these guys on the range, and they almost invariably wear their camouflage clothes to complete the image. I'll tell you the truth, Mustang. I think that half of these guys are just kids that never outgrew their toys. The other half are cranks who actually expect to duke it out with the government in their bunker, or, at the very least, become a hero by taking out a deranged 17 year old kid shooting in a shopping mall. I suspect that they are disappointed every time they are packing heat, and don't get a chance to take down a bad guy.