Obama joins the NRA

You're safe now - I'm sending Sidwell's guards to your school

You’re safe now – I’m sending Sidwell’s guards to your school

He told his base, but they won’t hear.

[A] fter the NYT, and pretty much all the other inside-the-beltway crowd, called the armed-guards-in-schools proposal crazy — the Times called it “delusional, almost deranged” — President Obama came out with . . . a proposal for armed guards in schools. It is no small feat for an out-of-touch, on-the-ropes organization [like the NRA]  to get the President to basically endorse its signature policy proposal at a time of national debate.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 8:27 am

43 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

43 responses to “Obama joins the NRA

  1. RL

    “Aqua”, would someone please throw some water in my face ! ~ Spock to Enterprise did I hear U correctly ?

  2. JRH

    Sidwell doesn’t have armed guards, but I’m guessing you don’t care to let that get in the way of a good punch line.

    • Anonymous

      Excluding Secret Service:
      WaPo says no, just Special Police Officers (SPOs)
      Huffpo says yes.
      Who’s telling the truth?

      Division and lies, hallmarks of the era.

      • Regardless, his kids have armed guards and he’s now recommending that armed guards be stationed in public schools, a recommendation that, as noted, was described as “deranged” by the New York Times. I don’t disagree with their assessment of our president, but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn, occasionally.

  3. Al Dente

    I won’t allow Mrs. Dente to use the stove….she’s deranged. Ha!
    Here’s a good home defense weapon from my good friend Pietro Beretta:

    • burningmadolf

      Nooooooo. Please take this down. I don’t want my Mossberg and its efficient protection capacity to become a topic of discussion anywhere.

  4. Artie

    Here’s a good, honest, non-partisan piece that I read from a friend of a friend on Facebook. Give it a read:

    “So, here’s my two cents (which will end up being closer to $1.50 I’m sure) and I’m sure I will regret posting this later, due to the “friends” I will lose while exercising my First Amendment, but here goes.

    Instead of posting a meme with a picture and a falsely attributed quote or a made up statistic, I’ve spent my time researching the gun violence/gun control debate. And I’d like to talk about some of the pervasive themes I’ve seen lately.

    First off, Hitler did not say “In order to conquer a country, you must first disarm its citizens.” In fact, Hitler made it his position to enable guns to be obtained more easily. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/disarm.asp

    Secondly, the presidents, and I mean ALL of them, and their families, receive death threats on a daily basis. President Obama did not enact the regulations that REQUIRE Secret Service protection for him and his family. If you believe your children are as much of a target as the president’s children, then you have a self inflated idea of your position in this world. http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml

    Thirdly, there is NO law or bill being considered that would allow anyone to come marching into your home to take your legally obtained and legally owned firearms. There are possible laws that are being explored that would require more responsibility on the part of the gun owner or person purchasing a gun (i.e. pass a background check even if buying a gun from a gun show dealer). If you buy a car from a dealer it must be registered (a record of the transfer is documented). If you buy a car from a private citizen, it must be registered. If you buy a gun from a dealer, there is a record of that sale and it is registered. So how is it illogical to require the same for private sales of firearms?

    Fourth, there are not more people being killed with baseball bats than guns. If you disagree with that because you saw a picture stating otherwise on the internet, then I would like to offer you the chance to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona and I’ll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge for free. There is no magical solution for solving the problem of gun violence. THAT is what we need to solve. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

    We don’t ban cars that are used in DUI related deaths, but we do enact regulations regarding blood alcohol limits, prosecute people who enable a drunk driver to operate a vehicle after serving them, promote a DUI campaign raising awareness and educating drivers on the dangers of driving while intoxicated. All of which has reduced DUI related fatalities by over 40% in a decade. http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics

    The media is not hiding other gun related stories because they want to sensationalize the problem, they are simply unable to cover every gun death story because there would be an average of 80 of them each day. So they concentrate (unfortunately) on the massacres which I think we can all agree, happen all too often.

    I find the fact that more children are killed in the US by guns than in the entire Middle East region, very disturbing.

    I find it disturbing that the NRA blames the rise in violent shootings on video games and then comes out with its own shooting video game (categorized for children as young as 4 years of age) less than a month after Newtown.

    I find it disturbing that other countries spend in excess of twice as much as the US on violent video games and have a small fraction of the amount of gun related deaths/injuries.

    I find it disturbing that instead of looking for a solution to a problem like Newtown, there are people wasting their time and energy by trying to turn it into a conspiracy theory.

    I find it disturbing that guns are the third largest killer of children ages 5-14 in the US.

    I find it disturbing that a child in America is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun than the rest of the “developed” world.

    I find it disturbing that there are more guns privately owned in America than the next SEVENTEEN countries combined.

    I find it disturbing that all of these statistics are not discussed but fake statistics about a baseball bat death rate are plastered everywhere.
    I find it disturbing that some people believe that the ONLY answer to this problem is more guns.

    Banning all firearms is NOT the answer, which is exactly why it’s not being proposed. This country has enacted laws that didn’t work before, so they’ve been revised, repealed, reformed, etc. It’s ludicrous to think that as a society, we evolve, but the laws governing us cannot? The NRA states that the assault weapons ban didn’t work the first time. Well, you know what they say, “If at first you don’t succeed, f*%k it.”.

    If armed guards are the only answer to ending school shootings, then explain the VT shooting. Virginia Tech had an entire police department complete with a SWAT unit. Explain Columbine, which had an armed officer on staff. When discussing an end to gun violence in schools, there should be NOTHING left off of the table.

    Ronald Reagan, a huge gun proponent and signor of the Brady Bill, wrote to Congress in 1994 asking them to propose legislation limiting or stopping altogether the manufacture of guns classified as assault weapon. And anyone saying “assault weapon” is a made up term should remember that every word in every language is, in fact, made up.

    And yes, criminals don’t typically obey laws, but we still have them. Can you use that logic to say there should be none at all? No.

    Let me be clear, I am NOT anti gun. I have nothing against guns or responsible gun owners. I served proudly in the military, I worked in armed security, I’ve hunted, and enjoy target shooting since I was a kid. And I’m sure most gun enthusiasts are the same way. However, this issue should be discussed logically and rationally, and all I see are comments and pictures that are anything but rational and for the most part, are just viral, inflammatory, unresearched, vitriol.

    The president enacted 23 executive actions today, of which only 2 have anything to do with limiting the availability of a category of gun or a magazine capacity. The remaining 21 deal with aspects regarding background checks, school safety and mental health system requirements and deficiencies. Will it be a perfect solution? No. Will it help? We’ll see. Is it better than doing nothing? Definitely. If we keep using the statement, “It’s too soon to talk about it.” after each tragedy, pretty soon, we’ll never talk about it.

    OK, so maybe it ended up closer to $2.00 instead of 2 cents. So sue me.”

    • Here you go: Cuomo two weeks ago, Diane Feinstein 1995 – any other “truths” your writer friend wants to denounce?

      • Artie

        That was in 1995. Cuomo said it was an option, so are a lot of things. Did they pass?

        I seem to recall the baseball bat analogy in here somewhere, do you? Not so true… (Looking into swimming pools… ;)

        • Feinstein in December 2012 announced that she would be introducing a bill to ban most new guns and to force the registration of all existing guns and their owners. Guns that are “grandfathered” could not, under Feisntein’s law, be sold, given or traded away, meaning that upon the death of the owner authorities will confiscate the weapons and melt them down.
          That recent enough for you? Just because someone says what she’s going to do one year doesn’t mean she doesn’t still intend to do it 15 years later. Meine Kampf was written in 1925.

      • Who does the background checks on private sales? Do you have to show your license? Honest question as I really don’t know.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/01/19/gun-show-shootings_n_2513057.html

        • A federally licensed gun dealer, who you’ll find at most gun shows, all gun shops and most “private” gun dealers, has you complete a form: drivers license, soc. sec. number, etc., then calls a central number maintained, I believe, by the FBI (more knowledgable people can correct me, but it’s not Uncle Joe down at the corner bar) and gets confirmation that you aren’t a felon, been adjudged mentally incompetent, convicted of domestic violence or drunk driving or any number of other disqualifying events, and then, if you have a pistol permit, you can leave with your pistol that day, a hunting license, with your rifle that day. Otherwise, there’s a waiting period of several days (I forget how long – 5 days? A week? Something like that).

        • I assume nothing on used gun sales. There’s a hole in the system. A solution might be to have to have the gun inspected or sold through a third party. Inconvenient? Yes.

        • No Artie, gun shows and private dealers also deal in used guns. But are there loopholes? Hell man, where do you think gang bangers get their guns?

        • Artie

          I assumed that they stole them.

    • AJ

      Regarding your above:
      “…And anyone saying “assault weapon” is a made up term should remember that every word in every language is, in fact, made up….”

      That’s the best non sequitur I’ve read in a long time — a true “I know you are but what am I” classic, meaning, I take it, that your argument is solid whereas everyone else’s is just made up stuff. Why, it’s the perfect answer to everything. If words have no meaning why are you even talking? LOL.

      • Artie

        Obviously, everything is not perfect, AJ. that’s the meaning you derived from the guys writing? 1500-3000 words, and that one sentence is what did it for you? That’s what deserved your response. That’s like me pointing out that someone made a spelling mistake in their post. What are your thoughts on the rest?

        • AJ

          No, it’s not at all like a spelling mistake but much more like a tell that unintentionally reveals the core of the argument and the writers intent — a game changer. It’s the epiphany, the so that’s what this is all about, wow, you are toast pronouncement. As to the rest of it, the core, or the heart, of the argument is the argument, no matter how much you decorate or embellish it. Since I usually give priority to the endeavors that are most likely to be fruitful, I’ll get right back to you after I’m finished arguing with this brick. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xHhjcK7y3XM/TCYi1Wy4OqI/AAAAAAAAEcc/2baLbWYlEdA/s1600/historical+brick.JPG

        • Artie

          First, it’s not MY argument. Second, thanks for including the self portrait.

        • AJ

          Ah Artie, you truly are a classic: first you defend your post, then you throw it under the bus by saying it’s not yours — meaning I guess that your point was no point — then you revert to your standard modus operandi of “I know you are but what am I”. Carry on.

        • Artie

          What color is the sky in your world? I’ve asked for your thoughts on something that I read and posted here. You nitpicked about one line in the entire 18 paragraph post. Does the logic of the post baffles you? Is it that someone is asking your opinion, and not attacking you? What’s the problem? It’s not a game changer at all. It’s one sentence. If were to go over your diatribes here and picked out one sentence, I’m sure we could find a weak thought.

          What do you think about the rest of the post? If you don’t want to engage, don’t, but stop with the asinine, inane comments that don’t contribute anything. (Or, maybe THAT’S the game changer – your argument is so weak, that you just try distract from its veracity…)

        • AJ

          “…And anyone saying “assault weapon” is a made up term should remember that every word in every language is, in fact, made up….” is, in my opinion, the crux of your friend of a friend’s argument; I find it to be the only cohesive point. “Assault” and “weapon” are concrete words leaving very little room for interpretation, but your friend goes way beyond that in telling us that in saying “I’m going to the store” I might just as well have said “O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!” The rest of it is just a copy and paste laundry list. Far be it from me to argue against someones laundry, other than to say: add a little less bleach — I haven’t the time nor the inclination.

  5. Artie

    Stop with the Hitler references, for heavens sake – that’s fear mongering, and beneath you.

    Why isn’t every gun registered? Why isn’t every gun owner licensed?

    Just because someone proposes a law, doesn’t make it a law. Without support, it is just babble, isn’t it? So far, it’s just babble. I understand that you want to get out in front of it. That makes sense to me. If the residents of her state want it that way, and their elected officials vote the law into existence, so be it. That’s what we’ve signed on for. That’s what millions have fought for. (Yes, that and the right to speak your mind about it.)

    But seriously – why isn’t every gun registered, and why isn’t every gun owner licensed?

    • Anonymous

      Artie the Weasel learned his Judas-goat propagandizing from a grandfather who helped load the freight cars to Auschwitz and Treblinka offering Polish vacations, and from a father who had a long career betraying his people with the East German Staasi.

      AJ, don’t waste your time with him.

  6. Peg

    Every gun isn’t registered because there are an enormous number that are owned by criminals. Shockingly – they don’t always follow the law.

    And – that, my friends, is a large part of why we need the 2nd amendment and protections for legal gun owners. Because many are criminals (in and out of our government) – people need guns for self-protection.

    Said the women who thinks guns are creepy, has never had one and at least up to now doesn’t want one, either.

    • Artie

      Why isn’t every gun that is sold new registered?

      Of course, if guns were registered originally and reported when stolen, it would help out law enforcement.

      And why gun owners aren’t licensed? Bueller? Bueller?

      Anyone? Bueller? I don’t get it.

      • Peg

        Uh – once again, there is this little bit of paper called The Constitution. We have states rights (and no, this has nothing to do with slavery). Every state has its own laws regarding firearms.

        I am no constitutional expert. But – if you want to know why some things are or are not so, it’s because people from different states have varying opinions on a wide variety of issues as to how they should be handled. As is their right…..

      • New guns are indeed registered, and sold only through licensed firearms dealers. Most handgun owners are licensed – criminals tend to forgo such niceties and not only don’t bother obtaining a license (they’d be rejected) but buy their weapons from other thieves, where record keeping is minimal.
        No one leaves a gun behind at a crime scene voluntarily – if the police recover it, it’s because the last guy using it is dead or captured. Knowing where a gun was originally stolen is of little value – a gun stolen, courtesy of the Journal news, in Mamaroneck one week could be in California the next.
        The two shooters most recently in the news, the gunman in Newtown and the killer of those two firemen were legally barred from owning guns, the first because he was under 21, the other because he was a felon. They broke the law – sue them.

        Just to remind you, Artie, there are not only laws regulating guns and laws with draconian penalties for illegal possession of guns, there are also laws prohibiting murder – the usual rule in these sort of situations is that criminals intent on mayhem disregard all applicable laws, and do what their twisted minds tell them they want to do. As a for instance, do you really think that the kid who blew his mother’s head off up there in Newtown would have stopped there and never entered the school if he’d been aware that Connecticut has a “gun-free zone” around all its schools? Do you think that Obama’s new executive order dictating mandatory lessons in gun safety will stop the next kid like that? I don’t.

        • Artie

          “Most” handgun owners are licensed? Huh? How is that statement ok to begin with? I’m not talking about how people who get there hands on guns illegally, but while you are I guess we can address it. So if every gun sale requires a license and registration, and a suspect is found to have a firearm, we’ll know that it was sold illegally and we can go after two problems at once – the guy who sold his gun, and the guy who ended up with it. If it was stolen and not reported, we can also go after two problems at once – the guy who is in possession of stolen goods and not licensed to carry, and the guy who didn’t take care of his gun and report that it was stolen. It really shouldn’t be much of a problem to get a database going.

          CF, I think we’ve been down this road – just because people break laws is not a reason to have no laws. In the Newtown, CT incident, if the owner of the guns wasn’t killed, I would favor going after her – she didn’t care for her guns, and put others in jeopardy. Why can’t we make people responsible for their own actions? She bought guns – she is now responsible for other people’s safety from those same guns. I think that is fair, and makes sense. If she were unharmed, I would imagine that there would be criminal and civil actions against her, don’t you?

          (I’m not sure where she got her guns, or where the other killer of the two firemen got their hands on their weapons, but I’d sure as hell like to know.) We have registrations and inspections on other products when they change hands – new or used (oh, and some revenue for the state, too) – why doesn’t it make sense to do the same for a product that is manufactured to kill human beings?

          Do I think that dictating mandatory lessons in gun safety will stop the next kid like that? Well, if they also teach people how to safely store their weapons, and how to keep them out of the hands of others – YES! I think if that order saves my child from harm, that it is successful. You are looking at “gun free” zones, while I’m looking at keeping guns out of people’s hands. The Newtown kid wasn’t a criminal prior to this incident. He’s really hurting those “it’s only criminals who use guns” arguments.

        • Artie, just a limited response here, but here goes: Where did the mother get her guns? She purchased them legally, with a proper permit. The fireman killer’s girlfriend bought the rifle used in the killings and gave it to him. She is being prosecuted. The mother also broke the law by not keeping her guns locked and there re laws in place that would have allowed for her prosecution, were she still around to face charges.
          We do have gun safety classes – I’ve taught them. And the Newtown kid was, apparently mentally insane, another class, besides criminals, that should be barred from possessing guns. Had his mother been successful in having him involuntarily committed, he would not have been allowed to own guns upon his release. Unfortunately, and as discussed here many times, the 1960s reform of our country’s mental health system has made it ractically impossible to involuntarily commit someone to an institution. That may have been the right thing to do – abuses in that system were horrific-but it may also be that the pendulum swung too far.

    • Libertarian Advocate

      Because many are criminals (in and out of our government)

      You mean like Eric Holder (in criminal and civil contempt of Congress, but un-indicted) or former Dem. Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin (indicted)?

  7. Anonymous

    According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2006, 13.10 cars out of 100,000 ended up in fatal crashes. The rate for motorcycles is 72.34 per 100,000 registered motorcycles.[1] Motorcycles also have a higher fatality rate per unit of distance travelled when compared with automobiles. Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists’ risk of a fatal crash is 35 times greater than a passenger car.[1] In 2004, figures from the UK Department for Transport indicated that motorcycles have 16 times the rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle kilometers compared to cars, and double the rate of bicycles.[2]

    A national study by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATS) found that:
    Motorcycle rider death rates increased among all rider age groups between 1998 and 2000
    Motorcycle rider deaths were nearly 30 times more than drivers of other vehicles
    Motorcycle riders aged below 40 are 36 times more likely to be killed than other vehicle operators of the same age.
    Motorcycle riders aged 40 years and over are around 20 times more likely to be killed than other drivers of that same age.[3]

    According to 2005 data from the NHTSA, 4,008 motorcycle occupants were killed on United States roads in 2004, an 8% increase from 2003.[4]

    During that same period, drivers of automobiles showed a 10% increase in fatalities, while cyclists showed an 8% increase in fatalities. Pedestrians also showed a 10% increase in fatalities. A total of 37,304 automobile occupants were killed on U.S. roads in 2004.[5]

    Additional data from the United States reveals that there are over four million motorcycles registered in the United States. Motorcycle fatalities represent approximately five percent of all highway fatalities each year, yet motorcycles represent just two percent of all registered vehicles in the United States. One of the main reasons motorcyclists are killed in crashes is because the motorcycle itself provides virtually no protection in a crash. For example, approximately 80 percent of reported motorcycle crashes result in injury or death; a comparable figure for automobiles is about 20

  8. Anonymous

    So artie. Why are older teenagers and anyone else alowed to operate motorcycles that go 160 mph and cars that exceed well over 100 mph. For what use dude?

    Wanna talk about alcohol consumption? How bout one must pass a govt psychological and background check and saftey course to enable one to consume it?

    • I’d suggest that the right to buy, possess or consume alcohol be permanently forfeited upon a first conviction for drunk driving or spousal abuse. You wanna stop crime and injury, start there.

    • Artie

      I’m kind of lost on the logic with this motorcycle analogy. Are motorcycles registered, and the drivers licensed? Are you surprised that motorcycle deaths are greater than automobile deaths when they offer no protection to the riders?
      I don’t see any reason to own a motorcycle at all, but that’s just me. Interestingly enough, there are different kinds of bikes – dirt bikes, drag bikes, racers, show bikes, etc. Kind of like there are different kinds of guns. I don’t see any reason to own one of them, either.
      I didn’t mention alcohol consumption that I recall, but we have laws on the books for a lot of things. Here’s an idea, why don’t we stick with one subject at a time?

      • Artie

        Sorry, two more cents…

        Re: alcohol – we do have laws that have to do with the people selling alcohol, and if you sell to the wrong person (under age, under the influence, etc.) there are penalties to the seller as well as the buyer. That’s what I’d like to see on gun sales.

        • Believe it or not, Artie, we have those same kind of laws for firearms. Unfortunately, they seem to be no more effective than the alcohol laws prevent bad people from coming home drunk and beating the crap out of their wives and children.

  9. Anonymous

    Thats right Artie. We have laws. LOTS OF THEM. And then there is the notion of personal responsibility which we wont get into here because its lost on you. Artie. Do me a favor and name the laws broken by the Sandy hook shooter. Come on, be a sport.

    Did you read about the retard out west that recently drove his motor cycle 145 mph thru a school bus full of kids. Where is your indignation? I cant beleive with all the vehicular carnage you are not running a national campaign to limit the speed of vehicles.

    See Artie. By your same logic, you are not responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle successfully or drink alchool responsibly. Ok you can have near beer but only if you submit to a background check first.

    BTW FyI More people were beaten to death last year in the US than were killed by ALL types of rifles combined.

    • Artie

      Ok, two points. First, CF – what is your suggestion? What are we supposed to do if our laws are ineffective? Do we take the law into our own hands? No, we try again. Are you saying otherwise? We keep going back to the “laws don’t work because criminals don’t pay attention to laws” – THAT doesn’t work – in reality, or in a discussion. We may have laws similar to alcohol laws, but do we have used weapons sales being registered? Do we inspect weapons upon their sale? Seems the least we can do to make people responsible for their firearms. Is that too much to ask?

      Moving to anon: What are you talking about?? I am the only person in this thread to even MENTION personal responsibility! Here’s a quote from above: “I would favor going after her – she didn’t care for her guns, and put others in jeopardy. Why can’t we make people responsible for their own actions? She bought guns…” I believe that is the personal responsibility you were looking for. I’m all for it! I don’t see how you are making a connection to my support and you saying that, “you are not responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle successfully or drink alchool responsibly.” What are you talking about? I AM personally responsible – I DON’T drink and drive. I’m not following your logic one bit, because your argument is lacking it. Mentioning that, “More people were beaten to death last year in the US than were killed by ALL types of rifles combined.” isn’t really helpful, as you are leaving out handguns. Are you doing that on purpose to make your argument sound better? It doesn’t, nor does your flawed logic. You see, when we’re having a discussion on a topic, you keep interjection noise – you are what’s known as a noisemaker. Your wonderful use of “retard” is really setting the bar high, there, as well as the rest of your flawed logic. Wise up!