New NRA ad: Let’s redistribute school security

posted at 8:01 am on January 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The NRA seems to have adopted a new strategy in their efforts to push back gun control: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.  Oh, they’re not falling in line with gun bans and magazine limits — they’re just adopting Barack Obama’s playbook in arguing against them.  Via Buzzfeed, here’s a new 30-second ad painting Obama as “just another elitist hypocrite” for disdaining the NRA’s proposal to subsidize armed guards in schools while send his own children to a school that has armed security on site.  Why should the rich and powerful be the only families with armed security guards for their children?  Redistribute the security!

You have to admire the strategy, even if you may be skeptical of the proposal.  These types of events are rare to the point where most armed guards won’t ever see anything close to a Newtown over the course of their lifetimes, and school security isn’t a federal issue; it’s local, and schools can add guards now, if they want them.  This is more of a pushback against the scorn heaped on the NRA for proposing the idea in the wake of Sandy Hook, even though the same scorn-heapers backed Bill Clinton’s COPS program, which subsidized armed guards in schools.  That blatant hypocrisy had the White House at least belatedly considering the NRA’s proposal as one part of their response.

The NRA must be doing something right in public relations, by the way.  Either that, or the nation’s best gunseller is even better than we imagined:

A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden’s recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told U.S. News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Politico reported membership had grown by more than 100,000 five days ago. The NRA says that when Politico reported the story, membership was close to 200,000, but the number has drastically grown in just five days. The association now has over 4.25 million members, but the NRA says that number is always fluctuating as memberships expire and new members join.

“I would say that every time President Obama opens his mouth and Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein opens her mouth and they talk about gun bans and restricting the rights of law abiding Americans, people pay attention to that and sign up,” says Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA’s public affairs director.

Yes, I think people are paying very close attention these days to Washington and the gun grabbers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

he’s clearly way more important than you are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

I get that you’re a moron and think really lowly of yourself, but no one is more important than me. No one should be more important than you. This is what equality means. But being a liberal you think equality is merely a word to be used as a political club. But, for me, my life is the most important life there is. For you, it should be your life. As we mature and have families that importance expands to include our families. In the end, I would gladly watch a thousand Kings, Queens, Presidents and Tsars die if that would protect me and my family.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Again with the word games. You, Cuomo, and Piers Morgan.

“Need”‘s not in the 2nd Amendment, goofball.

Cleombrotus on January 16, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Beautifully done, in a nutshell.

RIP little ones.

herm2416 on January 16, 2013 at 10:20 AM

if a law is not open to debate, we’re in big doo-doo as a country.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

LOL. Yes, and I bet you were outraged by Al (-Jazeera) Gore’s “the science is settled” proclamation, when he was trying to force his global-warming carbon-trading scams on unsuspecting U.S. taxpayers.

AZCoyote on January 16, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Some people will never get the point …

It’s not about “should our kids have secret service protection too” or “Obama’s kids are more likely to be attacked than yours” or whatever.

It’s a question about POLICY

The Elite has a retirement plan that isn’t social security … but social security is “good enough” for the rest of us.

The Elite has a medical plan that isn’t Medicare … but Medicare is good enough for the rest of us.

The Elite don’t entrust the safety & security of their children to a “gun free zone” sign … but when it comes to the rest of us, not only is a “gun free zone” sign “good enough,” the very idea that, maybe, we ought to arm, train & prepare people who work in these “target rich” environments to provide defense to the children under their care is “ridiculous.”

THAT is the hypocrisy.

BD57 on January 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

“You (including me) are simply nto as important as a the President. Deal with it.”

The presidency is just an office. and it is a temp job.

NoVAHockey on January 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

.
Even the most flaming I-hate-all-you-bigots-and-all-your-rules a$$thiest should be scared witless by that kind of sentiment.

No divine laws means no right is inviolable; anything at all is up for debate to the whims of politicians and the public at large. Neither of which, as we have seen many times over, have the wisdom of a toddler or the IQ of a houseplant.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:16 AM

.
Right-on.

Without God there are no “rights”.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

19 EO’s coming today. By definition, no debate.
Both houses are signaling no debate.

Try again.

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM

he enjoys the approval of a majority of Americans. you give it another try, lad.

it was about time for some executive orders, obama has been way too timid.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

if a senile granny armed to the teeth doesn’t terrify you, here’s your darwin award.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Where did it mention senility, she’s simply a senior citizen concerned about her own safety.

I’m more concerned about having a senator in office who is so aged that he needs to be wheeled-in and regularly falls asleep during policy debates.

Bishop on January 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM

How can Liberals be so ignorant concerning the Constitution?

Criminently…how can Liberals be so ignorant…period?

kingsjester on January 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Liberals aren’t ignorant of the Constitution.

Their problem is that they hate it. Liberals are the most hateful people on the planet and in human history. They hate everything and covet. It’s that covetousness that drives their hate.

Liberals are truly damaged people.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Thanks moron, I’m no more interested in whether you think I should own a firearm than I am in the your rat-eared idol’s views. It is a right, not something that you get to decide by your own viewpoints. God how I hate you people who don’t respect the Constitution. Go eff yourself.

And no, I would actually be happy to see harm come to the Obamas. I’m not advocating it but I’m not going to lie and say I would be sad and declare it a national tragedy. These people have done too much harm for me to ever have something other than hatred toward them or their worthless children.

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

You should learn to read…”you people”, as if…when someone disagrees with you, he is suddenly “you people” and an Obama supporter…never realizing that the office of the President, and all that goes with it, is more important than any one man, any one inept president.
Trust me (and you won’t openly), you don’t want “harm” to this president, the martyr factor would go off the roof. Want proof, another inept president, Kennedy (the man who allowed the Berlin Wall, Bay of Pigs, and to the brink of nuclear war) is considered a “god” among the liberals because he died in office…if harm came to this president or his family, the national tragedy would be an understatement.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM

How come I don’t see a big push to overturn the second amendment? A few balloons were floated, they got shot down (yeah, I did that on purpose), and now we’re talking about violating the constitution with statutes and EO’s, which you are clearly okay with.

If you’re so sure of your case, make it in all 50 states. Go ahead and try. You know you’ll lose. You have no recourse except to violate the constitution and to do so egregiously. That is what is not open to debate. Molon labe, libby.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM

LOL. Yes, and I bet you were outraged by Al (-Jazeera) Gore’s “the science is settled” proclamation, when he was trying to force his global-warming carbon-trading scams on unsuspecting U.S. taxpayers.

AZCoyote on January 16, 2013 at 10:20 AM

the science is settled, and every argument otherwise has been patiently refuted. that’s a debate for different day, though.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM

THAT is the hypocrisy.

BD57 on January 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

It was once put simply…”the politician’s don’t trust the people who put them in office for a reason”…and of course that reason is they know they are more inept than the public that voted for them.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:25 AM

I get that you’re a moron and think really lowly of yourself, but no one is more important than me.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM

unfortunately, everyone else disagrees. in fact, most agree that by virtue of his key role (leader of the free world, nuclear football, etc.), the president is more important than you and i are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM

You really need to finally figure out that YOU are useless to your own side.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:27 AM

because its not financially feasible considering our economic situation

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM


Report: Obama to propose federal funding for armed guards in schools

I guess Obama must have minted a $100 trillion coin or summin…

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:28 AM

once again, living in nyc, i wouldn’t need to advertise not having a gun even if i had a front yard. i also don’t need the “protection” of random nutters carrying guns around me.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM

.
NYC elitism SEVERELY VACCUUMS.

NYC has made itself a defacto “different country.”

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:28 AM

The presidency is more important than any individual that occupies it. And Obama does it a huge disservice with his flaunting of the constitution.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Liberals aren’t ignorant of the Constitution.

Their problem is that they hate it. Liberals are the most hateful people on the planet and in human history. They hate everything and covet. It’s that covetousness that drives their hate.

Liberals are truly damaged people.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Liam, you’ve already revealed yourself in this thread to be a hateful racist, you should stop.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Liam, you’ve already revealed yourself in this thread to be a —- , you should stop.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Liberal propaganda redacted.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM

unfortunately, everyone else disagrees. in fact, most agree that by virtue of his key role (leader of the free world, nuclear football, etc.), the president is more important than you and i are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Nah, especially since the order of succession is spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Be assured. I hold you in equal stead with Barack Obama. No, I take that back. The country can survive Barack Obama. It is debatable whether it can survive you and legions of your fellow bots.

In the grand scheme of things, Obama is nothing more than a haemorrhoid on the anus that IS Progressivism.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM

unfortunately, everyone else disagrees. in fact, most agree that by virtue of his key role (leader of the free world, nuclear football, etc.), the president is more important than you and i are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM

You really are dim. The OFFICE and the MAN are not the same thing. The MAN is ALWAYS replaceable.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM

The presidency is just an office. and it is a temp job.

NoVAHockey on January 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Yes, the job is only temporary, but the multi-million-dollar, taxpayer-funded benefits last for life. And Obama made sure his Secret Service protection lasts for life just last week by signing a law repealing a 1990′s-era law that limited SS protection to the first 10 years after a president leaves office.

Because after all, there is no way an ex-president can make enough money after he leaves office to enable him to afford to pay for his own personal security. No way other than the multi-million-dollar book deals and multi-million-dollar speaking tours.

And as Dear Leader has told us repeatedly, we all need to make sacrifices in these tough economic times. “All” meaning everybody but him and his family, of course. For the Obamas, there is no taxpayer-funded benefit that’s too much.

But as all the libs keep telling us above, it’s perfectly okay, because the Obamas are so much more important and deserving than the rest of us plebes.

AZCoyote on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

If you’re so sure of your case, make it in all 50 states. Go ahead and try. You know you’ll lose. You have no recourse except to violate the constitution and to do so egregiously. That is what is not open to debate. Molon labe, libby.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM

be patient, it’s a work in progress. the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward gun control.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Holy f*** this one is stupid.

tom daschle concerned on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

unfortunately, everyone else disagrees. in fact, most agree that by virtue of his key role (leader of the free world, nuclear football, etc.), the president is more important than you and i are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Glad to see you admit being a submissive.

My granddaughters are more important to me than you or your precious Obama. Why don’t you go kneel before Zod or something?

You are right about yourself being unimportant. If I had to choose between saving YOUR life or that of a miserable loss-begotten junkie, I would save the junkie.

YOU are worthless even to your own side, you miserable misbegotten hack.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

he enjoys the approval of a majority of Americans. you give it another try, lad.

it was about time for some executive orders, obama has been way too timid.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

‘Twas you that said all laws should be open for debate.
I was pointing out that this was NOT happening.

The President’s popularity is not part of that discussion. At all.

I do not think the President has been shy on EOs. Has issued quite a few.

BTW, you seem to approve of the “Imperial” President thingy. Not the person himself, but the concept.
I’d remind you that a government able to give you everything you want, is able to take it all away.

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

You should learn to read…”you people”, as if…when someone disagrees with you, he is suddenly “you people” and an Obama supporter…never realizing that the office of the President, and all that goes with it, is more important than any one man, any one inept president.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM

You didn’t voice disagreement, you declared that I shouldn’t own firearms because I don’t have the awesome adoration of the rat-eared wonder that you do. Who the hell gave you the right to decide who should be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights? That makes you a “you people.”

And I disagree with you on another point. Yes, the office of President is more important than the rat-eared Kenyan socialist who is currently in it. But that doesn’t mean that we the people shouldn’t question how the office is being upheld by the incumbent. That too makes you a “you people” because you make the absurd claim that we have no right to question our leaders.

Let’s see. You’ve attacked the First and Second Amendments so far. What’s next, upholding the HHS attack on religious liberty?

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM

You really are dim. The OFFICE and the MAN are not the same thing. The MAN is ALWAYS replaceable.

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM

just stop digging.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM

be patient, it’s a work in progress. the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward gun control.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

If I were a gambling man, I’d bet money that when it happens in whatever form, it won’t be because the second amendment was repealed.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM

One point that 2nd Amendment defenders never make: if guns are the problem, why are there never any tragic shootings or bursts of violence at gun shows?

matthew8787 on January 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM

And as long as the second amendment stands, molon labe libbies.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM

just stop digging.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Why? Putting you in a hole is so much fun!

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM

just stop digging.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM

I know it’s too deep for your idol worshipping mind. So try this, why did gun violence go down since the last assault-weapon ban was lifted?

Flange on January 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Nah, especially since the order of succession is spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM

i duly note you assertion that US presidents are dispensable.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM

be patient, it’s a work in progress. the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward gun control.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

What are you–Captain Kirk?

(hint: Kirk is a fictional character in a TV show)

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

If I were a gambling man, I’d bet money that when it happens in whatever form, it won’t be because the second amendment was repealed.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM

i agree, an amendment that spells out the federal government’s gun control powers will do just fine.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

And, the winner of the Walter Duranty award of the day, for more reasons than one, is…

be patient, it’s a work in progress. the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward gun control.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:28 AM

I am reminded of that “civilian security force” that Obama ranted on about in his first term. We never did find out what he meant.

Also, “under the radar” should jangle a few nerves.

OldEnglish on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

i duly note you assertion that US presidents are dispensable.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Our country was founded by people who believed that the office was more important than the person. Indeed, Washington, and many after him, REFUSED to serve more than two terms. It wasn’t until the twentieth century and FDR that we discovered a need to enshrine that tradition in the 22nd amendment to make it a requirement.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM

i duly note you assertion that US presidents are dispensable.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Liberals like you are more so, a dime a dozen.

Even at that, you’re overpriced.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM

And as long as the second amendment stands, molon labe libbies.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM

not only is your slogan childish, 300 was an awful movie as well.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

once again, living in nyc, i wouldn’t need to advertise not having a gun even if i had a front yard.
sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM

not a property owner?
why am I not surprised.

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

i duly note you assertion that US presidents are dispensable.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Well, don’t duly note that I would do anything to bring about their expiration or applaud same; however, history is on my side.

The country has survived every time one of yours has dispensed with an American president.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

not a property owner?
why am I not surprised.

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Check the prices of owning property in NYC, wiseass.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:40 AM

i agree, an amendment that spells out the federal government’s gun control powers will do just fine.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Such blithering ignorance. You libbies will never get Your constitutional amendment. You’ll never get enough states on-board! Obama knows this, which is why he is pursuing extraconstitutional means!

Oh man…that’s what irritates me the most about lib-ruls. They always grossly overestimate the popularity of the proposals they float.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Indignance, it is. You’re not understanding willfully misunderstand the argument that’s being made here. But I guess if you want to persist in your foot stomping, suit yourself.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Pal, don’t be foolish, I get the argument, but I was responding to the specific poster, don’t move the goal posts…if he, and others, think the argument of “Obama’s children don’t need special protection” is a winner, great…just that their are better arguments than “he is an elitist”…One, his supporter want him to be a elitist, that’s why he was elected but because he is a minority elitist, Two, everyone knows the first family needs and deserves protection for national security reasons, no reasonable person thinks otherwise, Three, the argument should not be “who deserves what”, it should always be, until someone repeals the 2nd amendment, it stands, Fourth, they allow the media to get away with this “AR” faux science, it’s just a gun, albeit a fantastic weapon, that is now extremely popular in hunting circles…like many things from the military, it works back into the public…like the HumVee, Jeep, backpacks, dehydrated food, etc. It’s a natural progression…

Nothing scary about a better more efficient weapon, the “six-shooter”, repeating rifle, etc.

There is just a better way than this phony scary elitists line of foolish reasoning…most people won’t fall for it, they will just roll their eyes and say “Another scary NRA ad”…

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

not a property owner?
why am I not surprised.

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

my apartment’s worth your entire block/village.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

i duly note you assertion that US presidents are dispensable.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM

So, in a sinking boat situation, it’s presidents first before women and children?

sentinelrules on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

i agree, an amendment that spells out the federal government’s gun control powers will do just fine.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

The Federal government’s powers are already spelled out in the Second Amendment: It has no power against private citizens being armed.

You claim to be smart but, from what I and others keep seeing from you, is that you have a hard time grasping plain English and basic concepts of adult understanding.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

not only is your slogan childish, 300 was an awful movie as well.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

It’s not a slogan, ses. It’s a challenge. It’s my challenge to you and anyone else who would infringe on my clearly enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM

not only is your slogan childish, 300 was an awful movie as well.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

The use of “Molon Labe” with regard to the Second Amendment precedes the movie.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Fictional?

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

After all these years, going to conventions, having two walk-in closets full of appropriate uniforms and such…fictional?

Dayyum…have I been misled.

:-)

coldwarrior on January 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM

my apartment’s worth your entire block/village.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

…thanks to liberal notions of “rent control.” LOLOLOL

Elitist hack.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM

the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward gun control.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

That’s because all governments tend towards tyranny, and tyrants always try to disarm their populations.

You’re a dangerous fool.

AZCoyote on January 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM

… and school security isn’t a federal issue; it’s local, and schools can add guards now, if they want them …

Ed, that is not in Obama’s plan.

He plan’s to federalize school security, via the TSA, and with it the inherent expansion of public employee unions.

It doesn’t take too much extrapolation before every school board in America will be required to have a federally appointed Unionized TSA member.

Transforming America!

Carnac on January 16, 2013 at 10:43 AM

not only is your slogan childish, 300 was an awful movie as well.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM

The use of “Molon Labe” with regard to the Second Amendment precedes the movie.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Ses probably thinks that “Frank Miller’s 300″ was the first movie made about the Battle of Thermopylae. I love watching libs stew in their own ignorance.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Liam, you’ve already revealed yourself in this thread to be a hateful racist, you should stop.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

maybe you all can repeal the first amendment next, so you can force people to talk and think the way you want.
once the wet dream of repealing the second is done whats to prevent removing the first?

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 10:45 AM

my apartment’s worth your entire block/village.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Ah! Now we have it!

You’re just another pompous sanctimonious limousine liberal.

You have no concept of us at all, you don’t know who we are are what we common folk are about. I bet you have armed guards, or live in a secure buliding with a doorman, don’t you?

Nice to have you finally out of the closet, you sandbox socialist.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I don’t know why somebody would be “skeptical” about putting armed guards/cops in schools. Where I live – town of about 50,000 outside of a military base – there’s cops at the high school (for all the years I’ve lived here), and at the middle school where my wife works, there’s a cop there most of the time (because they have to teach DARE classes).

It wouldn’t be that big a deal to pull some people off of regular duties (writing tickets) and put them on guard on schools. There’s also rent-a-cops, which would be cheaper than regular police…and there’s a lot of vets that need jobs.

John_G on January 16, 2013 at 10:45 AM

he enjoys the approval of a majority of Americans. you give it another try, lad.

it was about time for some executive orders, obama has been way too timid.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

.
Nope … the election results are open to debate.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I am wondering whether it is smarter to join the NRA and have benefit of protection (legal help, etc.), or whether to stay quiet so as to stay off the radar, considering that it’s a given that the Feds undoubtedly have a way to get NRA membership lists.

Been struggling with that.

cane_loader on January 16, 2013 at 10:46 AM

If I were a gambling man, I’d bet money that when it happens in whatever form, it won’t be because the second amendment was repealed.

gryphon202 on January 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM

i agree, an amendment that spells out the federal government’s gun control powers will do just fine.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

So you admit that under the current 2nd amendment the government has no power to control guns.

Corsair on January 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM

my apartment’s worth your entire block/village.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

.
How much food can you grow in your apartment?

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM

i agree, an amendment that spells out the federal government’s gun control powers will do just fine.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Cannot seem to recall any draft or printed copy of the Constitution starting out with “We, the Government” or “Me, the President”….but only those which are heralded with “We, the People…”

The Constitution is about the powers of the People…and limits those of government. That is its sole intent. Limit governance, and provide for ample liberty for the People.

So…to suggest that spelling out government’s powers over gun control in our Constitution renders the argument silly.

It has already been covered.

coldwarrior on January 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM

There’s also rent-a-cops, which would be cheaper than regular police…and there’s a lot of vets that need jobs.

John_G on January 16, 2013 at 10:45 AM

When I was growing up, the security guards who chased us when we rode our bikes in places we weren’t supposed to were called “rent-a-pigs.”

:)

Kids and their nicknames.

cane_loader on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

my apartment’s worth your entire block/village.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

and requires someone else building/maintaining/protecting it.
again, not at all surprised.
I can live when the power goes out and provide my own food and heat.
you’re a pussy.

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Liam, you’ve already revealed yourself in this thread to be a hateful racist, you should stop.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

I hate only liberals. Otherwise, I’m really a nice guy.

And blacks have attacked my oldest granddaughter because she is white (I’ll spare the many details).

I know more abut racism, by experience, than anything a scumbag liberal like YOU can tell me.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

my apartment’s worth your entire block/village.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

People in the City are very proud of this. Makes ‘em think they are “better”.

Jabberwock on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

my apartment’s worth your entire block/village.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

and requires someone else building/maintaining/protecting it.
again, not at all surprised.
I can live when the power goes out and provide my own food and heat.

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

How much food can you grow in your apartment?

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM

How much food can you grow if there’s suddenly no fuel for your tractor/combine/etc?

I’m not even trying to be snarktastic.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

unfortunately, everyone else disagrees. in fact, most agree that by virtue of his key role (leader of the free world, nuclear football, etc.), the president is more important than you and i are.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:26 AM

If he’s so important, then why does so much go on in the government without his knowledge (supposedly). #FastandFurious

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Check the prices of owning property in NYC, wiseass.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:40 AM

stupid enough to live there?
thats your issue not mine.

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 10:49 AM

A Gun Ban That Misfired: What I saw as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., makes me wary of strict firearms laws.

By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

In the wake of the horrific elementary-school shootings in Newtown, Conn., last month, many Americans, desperate to do something in response, have decided that much stricter gun control is the answer. Democrats have proposed reinstating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein has proposed legislation that would even restrict the use of some semiautomatic handguns.

As a former prosecutor in Washington, D.C., who enforced firearms and ammunition cases while a severe local gun ban was still in effect, I am skeptical of the benefits that many imagine will result from additional gun-control efforts. I dislike guns, but I believe that a nationwide firearms crackdown would place an undue burden on law enforcement and endanger civil liberties while potentially increasing crime.

The D.C. gun ban, enacted in 1976, prohibited anyone other than law-enforcement officers from carrying a firearm in the city. Residents were even barred from keeping guns in their homes for self-defense.

Some in Washington who owned firearms before the ban were allowed to keep them as long as the weapons were disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. According to the law, trigger locks could not be removed for self-defense even if the owner was being robbed at gunpoint. The only way anyone could legally possess a firearm in the District without a trigger lock was to obtain written permission from the D.C. police. The granting of such permission was rare.

The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.

The Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department also waged a war on firearms by creating a special Gun Recovery Unit in 1995. The campaign meant that officers were obliged to spend time searching otherwise law-abiding citizens. That same year, the department launched a crackdown called Operation Cease Fire to rid the District of illegal firearms. But after four months, officers had confiscated only 282 guns out of the many thousands in the city.

Civil liberties were endangered. Legislative changes empowered judges to hold gun suspects in pretrial detention without bond for up to 100 days, and efforts were made to enact curfews and seize automobiles found to contain firearms. In 1997, Police Chief Charles Ramsey disbanded the unit so that he could assign more uniformed officers to patrol the streets instead, but the police periodically tried other gun crackdowns over the next decade—with little effect.

In 2007, a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city’s gun ban was unconstitutional. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote in the majority opinion that “the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.”

The ruling was affirmed the following year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion said that citizens were guaranteed a right to keep firearms that were in common use in their homes for self-defense, but that the government could pass reasonable regulations concerning firearms and ammunition.

Heller created a panic among gun-control advocates because it condoned the ownership of semiautomatic handguns, which are among the most common firearms in use but also the target of many restriction efforts. Supporters of the District gun ban maintained that because a semiautomatic handgun could potentially be converted into a machine gun—a class of firearms not expressly protected by Heller—they were in fact machine guns and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. In response, Congress threatened to pass a law that specified the legality of semiautomatic handguns in the District. To avoid the embarrassment of being dictated to by Congress, the D.C. Council passed emergency legislation in September 2008 amending the gun ban to allow ownership of semiautomatic handguns for home defense.

Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected.

The urge to drastically restrict firearms after mass murders like those at Sandy Hook Elementary School last month and in Aurora, Colo., in July, is understandable. In effect, many people would like to apply the District’s legal philosophy on firearms to the entire nation. Based on what happened in Washington, I think that would be a mistake. Any sense of safety and security would be a false one.

Mr. Shapiro was a criminal prosecutor for the District of Columbia from 2007-09.

Resist We Much on January 16, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How much food can you grow if there’s suddenly no fuel for your tractor/combine/etc?

I’m not even trying to be snarktastic.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I know how to use an ax and a horse driven plow if needed.
its hard but not impossible.
it would suck, but I could survive.

dmacleo on January 16, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How much food can you grow if there’s suddenly no fuel for your tractor/combine/etc?

I’m not even trying to be snarktastic.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Nah, now you’re just being stupid.

HumpBot Salvation on January 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM

You didn’t voice disagreement, you declared that I shouldn’t own firearms because I don’t have the awesome adoration of the rat-eared wonder that you do. Who the hell gave you the right to decide who should be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights? That makes you a “you people.”

And I disagree with you on another point. Yes, the office of President is more important than the rat-eared Kenyan socialist who is currently in it. But that doesn’t mean that we the people shouldn’t question how the office is being upheld by the incumbent. That too makes you a “you people” because you make the absurd claim that we have no right to question our leaders.

Let’s see. You’ve attacked the First and Second Amendments so far. What’s next, upholding the HHS attack on religious liberty?

Happy Nomad on January 16, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Well, imagine my surprise with your response…try to find a post where I have shown any “adoration” for Obama, look back the past 7 years pal, and try to find one where I admire any liberal…what a foolish statement.
I stated not understanding the simple concept that the presidential office is unique and a national treasure would in my mind, eliminate a person from having he mental capacity to own a firearm.

Now you show me where I stated that we should not question our leaders…

See you wrap your arguments around lies and imaginary statements, ones you had made up in your head…you even have about 7 years of my posting to go back and find where you are correct…try to find anywhere where I supported liberals, or that I never thought you should question leaders…good grief, I am arguing with someone so ill informed, they have to make up stories to support their claims.

I don’t get the “first amendment” attack, and read my posts on the 2nd…it should stand on it’s own, and until it’s repealed, any one that is of sound mind, and non-criminal, should own a firearm, any firearm that is reasonable…a shoulder mounted missile, or grenade launcher, probably should have a special license attached to ownership, but I am not even against those under controlled conditions…just the argument that the president is an “elitist” is just childish.

Next time try to comment with some facts, and not make-believe events you create to try to win an argument…facts, not emotions is what we need to win this battle.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM

my apartment’s worth your entire block/village.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Well, we are all happy for your aunt…and it’s nice that she let’s you live their.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM

but everyone else is terrified.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

No, you and many of your NYC brethren might be terrified, but I’d be clam-happy to work and live in an environment where as many good citizens as possible were armed. Crime rates would be nil, and bounderies and personal property would be duly respected.

My guess is, you were raised liberal, have no intimate, first-hand knowledge of firearms and how they actually work, and have been brought up hearing the ‘guns are bad/the Constitution is a living document’ argument for so long you just don’t know any better.

Guns frighten you (understandable, as many things we don’t know frighten us,) and you figure that more laws will equal less guns and we’ll all be happier in the end. Unfortunately, criminals and madmen won’t obey your laws, and the more you assist in the transition from people to sheeple, the more emboldened the wolves will become.

CaptFlood on January 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM

The more these trolls gibber, the more they destroy their own case.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM

.
How much food can you grow if there’s suddenly no fuel for your tractor/combine/etc?

I’m not even trying to be snarktastic.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

.
Enough for a couple of families.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Liam, you’ve already revealed yourself in this thread to be a hateful racist, you should stop.

nonpartisan on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM

So now you’re a science denier? Anthropologists have already proved there is no such thing as “race”.

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 10:55 AM

How much food can you grow if there’s suddenly no fuel for your tractor/combine/etc?

I’m not even trying to be snarktastic.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Nah, now you’re just being stupid.

HumpBot Salvation on January 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM

As if you had any room to talk, Obama-for-brains. Try thinking for ten seconds next time.

There aren’t enough horses and oxen remaining to replace a tenth of what we can do with mechanical farming. Farmers will be able to feed themselves and their families, but not much more. And as was admitted, doing so will completely suck.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM

i duly note you assertion that US presidents are dispensable.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM

This one sure is.

Night Owl on January 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Anthropologists have already proved there is no such thing as “race”.

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 10:55 AM

ROTFLOL. Any “anthropologist” who has “proved” that there no such thing as race is in the same boat as an “astronomer” who has “proved” that the sun goes around the earth.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM

ROTFLOL. Any “anthropologist” who has “proved” that there no such thing as race is in the same boat as an “astronomer” who has “proved” that the sun goes around the earth.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM

The only thing worse is a know-nothing liberal who thinks he knows it all.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM

So now you’re a science denier? Anthropologists have already proved there is no such thing as “race”.

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Explain that to the people who race ever month to receive their welfare support…their is a race, a race to get on the free handout bandwagon, and if that means ignoring the constitution, so be it.

2nd amendment? Not worth anything to someone who is getting a free cell phone, apartment paid for, and free medical and health, along with a few bucks for “food”…

The Entitlement Race, is the most dangerous race in our nation.

right2bright on January 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I begin to wonder whether sesuipiddlesitspants and other trolls are not federal agents, trying to incite and get people to say things for the record that can be held against them later.

No intelligent creature actually holds the positions that these trolls do, lol.

Taken with the fact that there are no longer ban warnings for certain words/comments (eg: revolution), and the word filter is more relaxed than before, I also wonder if HA hasn’t gotten an official directive to allow it.

Just thinking.

Midas on January 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The only thing worse is a know-nothing liberal who thinks he knows it all.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Nutstuyu certainly qualifies.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:59 AM

No intelligent creature actually holds the positions that these trolls do, lol.

Midas on January 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM

That’s the essence of liberalism.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The only thing worse is a know-nothing liberal who thinks he knows it all.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Nutstuyu certainly qualifies.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Why in the world do you think I’m liberal????

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I begin to wonder whether sesuipiddlesitspants and other trolls are not federal agents, trying to incite and get people to say things for the record that can be held against them later.

Midas on January 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Would be interesting to at least try and backtrace their IP addresses, see if they came from say somewhere like Langley.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Farmers will be able to feed themselves and their families, but not much more.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM

That was the point idiot. Looks like you big city elitist will be SOL.

HumpBot Salvation on January 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Why in the world do you think I’m liberal????

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Your claim that “race” has been “disproved”?

I saw similar sentiments in an ICR magazine of all places awhile back and was equally disappointed in them.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM

That was the point idiot. Looks like you big city elitist will be SOL.

HumpBot Salvation on January 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM

No, idiot, the point went right over your toothless head. The point is that you won’t be so godd@mned important as you think you will.

“Derp derp, without us you’d all starve!” Yeah right. Things hit the fan and your biggest advantage will be being isolated (at first) and eating whatever scrawny stuff you can grow locally.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Going O T, here:

Anthropologists have already proved there is no such thing as “race”.

Nutstuyu on January 16, 2013 at 10:55 AM

.
ROTFLOL. Any “anthropologist” who has “proved” that there no such thing as race is in the same boat as an “astronomer” who has “proved” that the sun goes around the earth.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM

.
I’ve been saying for years that there is only one “human race”.

Are you rejecting that?

listens2glenn on January 16, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Your claim that “race” has been “disproved”?

I saw similar sentiments in an ICR magazine of all places awhile back and was equally disappointed in them.

MelonCollie on January 16, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Not to get too involved, but Nutstoyou is nowhere being liberal far as I have seen.

Now I’ll shut up for once, but just on this little matter. Otherwise, I’m in a bad mood and out to tear apart the souls of liberals.

Liam on January 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM

I begin to wonder whether sesuipiddlesitspants and other trolls are not federal agents, trying to incite and get people to say things for the record that can be held against them later.

No intelligent creature actually holds the positions that these trolls do, lol.

Taken with the fact that there are no longer ban warnings for certain words/comments (eg: revolution), and the word filter is more relaxed than before, I also wonder if HA hasn’t gotten an official directive to allow it.

Just thinking.

Midas on January 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM

you’re so precious.

i recognize the first part as the idiotic “obama is so mean for exposing republicans’ unpopular policy views” argument. the second is just the ususal truther nonsense you’re known for.

sesquipedalian on January 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7