Armed guards at schools

[Karee 4,190]

I wonder if they realize how flawed their arguments are before they say them and decide to say them anyway hoping nobody will notice ... or if they actually think this is a valid argument to make?

The old NRA seems much more reasonable than this one. Can we get them back?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I personally did not do anything and I found the whole thing rather amusing.

I don't have a problem with law enforcement officers carrying guns. They are the good guys and they are trained to use them.

So it's ok if you fear for your life and you can afford a cop to protect you or the secret service. But us regular joes. Well too bad

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So it's ok if you fear for your life and you can afford a cop to protect you or the secret service. But us regular joes. Well too bad

As a regular Joe, do you fear for your life often? Do people make threats to assassinate you on a regular enough basis that you would like constant protection? Just curious.

If you think all cops are the good guys you need to wake up

All cops? No. Most? Probably.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Evylin

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Armed guards at schools for the elite and obama’s kids, but not the rest of us.

http://www.nrastandandfight.com/

Incidentally, the school that Obama's daughters attend does not have any armed guards at all. None. Zero. Not one. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. The NRA is simply lying about that- as they are lying about anything else they say. Propaganda and lies. Lies and propaganda. That is all these terrorists have to offer.

Here's what they say:

“Armed Guards — Good enough for the David Gregory’s kids’ school, not for the rest of us. …[The] school Obama’s daughters attend has 11 armed guards.”

And here's the picture of the armed guards at that school they make public:

Problem is, that picture with these armed guards is NOT a picture of that school. How do we know? Well, the school doesn't have armed guards. Obama's daughters must, by law, have a security detail. But the school has zero armed guards. It's a Quaker School. They're pacifists. They have security personnel but that security personnel happens to be unarmed. Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.”

The terrorists at the NRA lied about the whole thing. All you gun nuts in support of this lying piece of cheap propaganda are free to feel like total arseholes now. You fell for a big, fat lie of a bunch of terrorists. So, you are free to feel stoopid, too.

[Karee 4,190]

Incidentally, the school that Obama's daughters attend does not have any armed guards at all. None. Zero. Not one. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. The NRA is simply lying about that- as they are lying about anything else they say. Propaganda and lies. Lies and propaganda. That is all these terrorists have to offer.

Here's what they say:

And here's the picture of the armed guards at that school they make public:

Problem is, that picture with these armed guards is NOT a picture of that school. How do we know? Well, the school doesn't have armed guards. Obama's daughters must, by law, have a security detail. But the school has zero armed guards. It's a Quaker School. They're pacifists. They have security personnel but that security personnel happens to be unarmed. Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: "Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns."

The terrorists at the NRA lied about the whole thing. All you gun nuts in support of this lying piece of cheap propaganda are free to feel like total arseholes now. You fell for a big, fat lie of a bunch of terrorists. So, you are free to feel stoopid, too.

What's your problem tonight? Too many beers, or did the wife cut you off?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's your problem tonight? Too many beers, or did the wife cut you off?

Neither. What makes you think I have a problem? Just ran across the story about the NRA lying about those armed guards at the school that Obama's and D. Gregory's kids attend. Thought I'd share it here since so many were concerned that these elite kids get armed guards and others don't. Turns out that the elite kids at that school don't really have any armed guards. It's all just a big, fat lie that the NRA terrorists made up to produce their despicable propaganda piece. These people are scum.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The terrorists at the NRA lied about the whole thing. All you gun nuts in support of this lying piece of cheap propaganda are free to feel like total arseholes now. You fell for a big, fat lie of a bunch of terrorists. So, you are free to feel stoopid, too.

Really. Wow, that's a stretch.

I wish my ethnic background was as pure as yours.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Really. Wow, that's a stretch.

I wish my ethnic background was as pure as yours.

You can stick those racist undertones where the sun don't shine.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

As a regular Joe, do you fear for your life often? Do people make threats to assassinate you on a regular enough basis that you would like constant protection? Just curious.

All cops? No. Most? Probably.

Yes I want constant protection provided by me

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yes I want constant protection provided by me

Of course you do.

Like I said, I want the old NRA back. Much more logical.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Of course you do.

Like I said, I want the old NRA back. Much more logical.

I guess we can compare the Democratic party to what they were in 1934, since that is baseline now ?? Wonder how many white sheets that would drag out of it's closet ?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I guess we can compare the Democratic party to what they were in 1934, since that is baseline now ?? Wonder how many white sheets that would drag out of it's closet ?

What a weird comparison.

One moved backward and now promotes fear and paranoia. And I'll give you a hint, it isn't the Democrats.

But sure, let's compare the NRA to a political party. That's .. sane.

I guess you can only use old laws and ideals when they agree with your point of view. Rules from the 1700s? Sure, let's apply them to today. Rules that a group enforced in 1934? The times have changed! Can't go back now.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Evylin

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess we can compare the Democratic party to what they were in 1934, since that is baseline now ?? Wonder how many white sheets that would drag out of it's closet ?

Nixon took care of that. He welcomed all the white sheets into the Republican party.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

What a weird comparison.

One moved backward and now promotes fear and paranoia. And I'll give you a hint, it isn't the Democrats.

But sure, let's compare the NRA to a political party. That's .. sane.

I guess you can only use old laws and ideals when they agree with your point of view. Rules from the 1700s? Sure, let's apply them to today. Rules that a group enforced in 1934? The times have changed! Can't go back now.

Well everyone keeps pointing out what the NRA stood for in 1934, as some sort of baseline measurement. I just pointed out what the Democratic party stood for in 1934. I guess it's not relevant when it does not support your argument.

P.S. I was not digging up old laws and things organizations use to stand for. That was you guys. I was just pointing out things change That's all

Edited January 21, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Well everyone keeps pointing out what the NRA stood for in 1934, as some sort of baseline measurement. I just pointed out what the Democratic party stood for in 1934. I guess it's not relevant when it does not support your argument.

P.S. I was not digging up old laws and things organizations use to stand for. That was you guys. I was just pointing out things change That's all

It's not a baseline measurement. It's a statement that even the NRA was FOR gun control. Yet today, if you're for any kind of gun control at all, you're called anti-constitution or anti-American.

What the Democrats stood for in 1934 IS irrelevant. You making the comparison has nothing to do with the NRA at all. Can the NRA not be defended without a dig at the old Democratic party? Is that what your argument is?

Edited January 21, 2013 by Evylin