Just re-upped for three years. Stand strong, NRA.
Printable View
Just re-upped for three years. Stand strong, NRA.
I think they nailed it. They kept the press conference on one subject, the school, and addressed it perfectly. I think it was smart they left the gun rights stuff out of this particular press conference, however I do expect them to address that issue ASAP.
I hope so. Nothing would make me happier than to write them a check to aid in the fight. But I have to be confident they are actually fighting for the rights of ALL gun owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
I have one concern to add to this discussion.
From an outsiders (non2A's) perspective, I have a feeling that a lot of the general sheeple will think that having armed security or teachers with guns at the school could be reflective of a "police state" where there are armed men on every corner. I understand the difference here, obviously, since we're talking about every-day citizens, but imagine for a moment if someone other than the 2A supporters said "We need armed security 24/7 and we have the men to do it"... Maybe the government for instance? What would our reaction be if BO said, "No problem NRA. Instead of you guys spending your money to make this happen, I'll cover it, and my properly trained men will protect our children, not some untrained civilians." How would that make you feel?
Imagine how the lefties feel considering the NRA's men are looked upon with disgust. Don't we get disgusted by BO and his men? For this reason, I don't see this being successful. As much as I agree with the premise that responsible gun owners save lives, I don't want the tides to turn and some Gov't douche to put their pawns in our schools instead of regular local cops and responsible teachers/principles, etc.
We rely on BO and his 'men' to protect us every day. Is he not the Commander and Chief of the entire US military? Do not all the armed federal agents in our government (FBI, DEA, BATF, etc) not ultimately report to him? I have no problem with civilian law enforcement watching over our schools. The reality is local or state law enforcement would be tasked with this. Even if federal agents were to provide security I would have no issue. The fact is when BO is out of office, these people will still be there doing their jobs and they would then report to the next president. They work for the office, not the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawin
And we really do need to ask ourselves why we don't actively protect our schools. Even if we could get rid of the maniacs/mass murders in our own society, we know for a fact there is a whole world of people who hate us and wish us harm. Some were willing to fly airplanes into buildings to harm us. I'm frankly suprised they haven't burst into a school yet and massacred everyone in it. We most definetly need to protect our children. Police state arguments or not, this is not the same world most of us grew up in. Our schools are incredibly vulnerable as we've unfortunately witnessed.
^That was my original thought as well earlier this week, however, I think he address that perfectly when he described us protecting our banks with guns but not our kids. Do the sheeple feel like the back is a police state? There is no telling what they think of course, but IMO he addressed that concern very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawin
Also, he specifically mentioned the idea was to keep it local...have the local schools, parents and LE discuss and develop a plan. Local control removes a lot of the scary "police state" images.
I thought they presented an extremely feasible and workable initiative.The WH would be fools not to agree with it, which IMHO is exactly what they will NOT do. Why? It makes too much sense. But if they do not look at the NRA's idea then the WH loses credibility as far as wanting a tangible solution to the issue at hand, keeping schools safe.If the WH does not go along with the NRA plan and instead just focuses on firearms it will backfire on them and possibly turn a bit of the tide against them.
I applaud Wayne for: 1- lambasting the press for the bias 2- presenting a well thought out plan 3- outing the WH for slashing school safety programs.
I don't think he gained any points with the video game tangent though...
I appreciate this response, thank you, but the examples of FBI, DEA, BATF, etc was not exactly my analogy. My point was that the NRA was suggesting a new team be developed for this purpose. The analogy was meant to induce responses and thoughts based on the off-chance that our idea to develop a new team was superseded, and instead of it being civilian/local folks stepping up to protect their own, that instead BO wanted to create his own new team of federal government employees to fulfill this role. What's the difference in that (the government agents) and a police state? Are you not opposed to the idea of a police state run by the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by mutt
I read NBC's assassination piece on the press conference. The derp in the comments section was weapons grade. It quickly became obvious that most of the posters hadn't watched the PC or read the transcript, they were just itching for another chance to attack the NRA and LaPierre. I haven't read this whole thread, but what I have read indicates some on here haven't bothered to digest the whole thing, either. What the NRA is proposing won't cost the taxpayers a nickel. (Granted, ne did call on Congress to cough up some funds, but I doubt anyone believes that will actually happen.) The school security guards would be trained volunteers retired cops, military, etc., or local police officers, and each district is free to opt out of any part of the security program. The whole thing is voluntary and up to the schools and the parents with kids there.
I think that's a clever offer on many levels.
I liked the question: Why is a gun good when it protects the President and bad when it protects our families? Kind of Socratic.