Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 186
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by RayClay View Post
    That a pro gun organization should use innocent teen and preteen girls in it's hideous video ads? That's true?

    What have they done to deserve this scrutiny? I don't care what kind of security you have, some deranged person might take after them after seeing an ad.

    Of course, it's your right to support this organizations methods if you want.
    I think you jump to conclusions.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    57,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Bridgeburner View Post
    I get that the President's daughter's need more security than mine do. I'm not an idiot. But the benefits of security translate to other people's kids as well, not just the Presidents. They want guns for their protection and laws for ours. That's not a catch phrase man, that's the truth.
    1. Politicizing the children of politicians is scummy.
    2. So you also advocate that the Federal government should now hire guards for our schools?
    3. "They want protection for their kids and laws for ours" is nothing BUT a catch phrase. It's demagoguery.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    1. Politicizing the children of politicians is scummy.
    2. So you also advocate that the Federal government should now hire guards for our schools?
    3. "They want protection for their kids and laws for ours" is nothing BUT a catch phrase. It's demagoguery.
    1. I don't agree.
    2. I advocate the federal government looking into what it would take and who would pay for it instead of smearing the idea.
    3. I don't agree.

    You seem more concerned with someone politicizing politicians' children than you are with someone murdering other kids.

    That's kind of...scummy too no? Just sayin.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mount Airy, MD
    Posts
    31,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Bridgeburner View Post
    Sorry to disappoint. You should get used to it though, it's kind of "my thing".

    I get that the President's daughter's need more security than mine do. I'm not an idiot. But the benefits of security translate to other people's kids as well, not just the Presidents. They want guns for their protection and laws for ours. That's not a catch phrase man, that's the truth.
    The NRA and its supporter have said so many stupid things recently, such as Martin Luther King would be proud of Gun Appreciation Day, but the armed guards in every public school thing is the one that makes them an easy target to laugh at.

    With a national dept crisis and school boards forced to cut good teachers just how in the world do you consider armed guards in every public school as a viable option?. And, this just in, a guard would be the first target of a wacko armed with an AK 47 and the eliment of surprise so it's not like a $13 an hour guard is a guarantee to stop another tragedy.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    57,258
    Well that's fine you don't agree. You tend to knee jerk and defend the NRA.

    So you do think we should politicize children? OK, well I'll keep note of that the next time you bring up how the gun control folks are overly emotional.

    Your final comments are in really poor taste. I guess your need to defend the NRA justifies in your mind saying pretty offensive stuff.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Grantville, Pa
    Posts
    34,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Bridgeburner View Post
    I thought that's what the link said. I skimmed over it. Four years old is about the time you would want to start teaching your kids about gun safety regardless of if you have one in the home or not. I think an app is a great idea. I use apps to teach my kids a lot of things. I have three "telling time" apps on my phone right now and a multiplication app as well.
    At 4 years old, you teach them gun safety. You teach them not to touch a gun if they see it. You tell them the power a gun has and the consequences of using one. You teach them it's not a toy. You do not teach a 4 year old, who does not understand the permanence of the actions of a gun, gun safety by having them play a video game where they target shoot.
    The consistent factor of all of your dissatisfying relationships and failures is you.

    R.W. 09.21.10 I love you.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    Well that's fine you don't agree. You tend to knee jerk and defend the NRA.

    So you do think we should politicize children? OK, well I'll keep note of that the next time you bring up how the gun control folks are overly emotional.

    Your final comments are in really poor taste. I guess your need to defend the NRA justifies in your mind saying pretty offensive stuff.
    It was an observation in poor taste. I do apologize for that. You're confused about who I'm defending though. I'm defending my children, not the NRA. I actually think its sad that they have the best idea out there. It's kind of like wow... these guys are our best shot at keeping our kids safe? We should be ashamed.

    I guess I'll agree that the add is in poor taste. Some truths are best not used to gain support? I'm probably less sensitive to it than I should be because quite frankly this administration's response to this tragedy is an embarrassment.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Superbelt View Post
    At 4 years old, you teach them gun safety. You teach them not to touch a gun if they see it. You tell them the power a gun has and the consequences of using one. You teach them it's not a toy. You do not teach a 4 year old, who does not understand the permanence of the actions of a gun, gun safety by having them play a video game where they target shoot.
    Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't. I haven't. But it's not as young as it sounds for hunters. Generally speaking I think kids start shooting around 6 years old in families that are avid hunters.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    But then again I grew up in a no-guns home. I have pictures of Christmas' where I got dart guns around age 4.

    How is that different? Were my parents scummy?

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Davekn View Post
    The NRA and its supporter have said so many stupid things recently, such as Martin Luther King would be proud of Gun Appreciation Day, but the armed guards in every public school thing is the one that makes them an easy target to laugh at.

    With a national dept crisis and school boards forced to cut good teachers just how in the world do you consider armed guards in every public school as a viable option?. And, this just in, a guard would be the first target of a wacko armed with an AK 47 and the eliment of surprise so it's not like a $13 an hour guard is a guarantee to stop another tragedy.
    You're saying that we have better things to spend our money on then? That's why the idea is laughable?

    If guards are useless then take the guards away from Obama's kids.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    57,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Bridgeburner View Post
    It was an observation in poor taste. I do apologize for that. You're confused about who I'm defending though. I'm defending my children, not the NRA. I actually think its sad that they have the best idea out there. It's kind of like wow... these guys are our best shot at keeping our kids safe? We should be ashamed.

    I guess I'll agree that the add is in poor taste. Some truths are best not used to gain support? I'm probably less sensitive to it than I should be because quite frankly this administration's response to this tragedy is an embarrassment.
    The problem, BB, is that you have one side proposing reforms to the gun laws while the other side rejecting ANY reforms. Whether you like it or not, the American people want changes to the laws.

    We have had numerous discussions here about possible changes to the laws. Many of them have had support on both sides. But it's pointless because it is one side discussion right now at the national level.

    In an era in which cutting spending is the clarion call of Washington, I fail to see how proposing a MASSIVELY expensive new program at the Federal level makes any sense.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    57,258
    One thing I do think that the NRA has a point on is the people who fail background checks. Allegedly 70,000 people failed background checks last year but only 40 people were prosecuted.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    The problem, BB, is that you have one side proposing reforms to the gun laws while the other side rejecting ANY reforms. Whether you like it or not, the American people want changes to the laws.

    We have had numerous discussions here about possible changes to the laws. Many of them have had support on both sides. But it's pointless because it is one side discussion right now at the national level.

    In an era in which cutting spending is the clarion call of Washington, I fail to see how proposing a MASSIVELY expensive new program at the Federal level makes any sense.
    Yeah, I don't really disagree with anything you said. And maybe my "at any cost" attitude is an emotional one and not a practical one. I can just name probably a hundred things off the top of my head that we spend money on that should be a lower priority than our kids safety. I mean, I'm most likely going to home school my kids. You know what that will cost me? $40,000 a year. My wife will quit her job. She doesn't make a lot really, but $40,000 is a chunk of change. That's what I am personally willing to pay. A year.

    I guess I just wish it was in the discussion, securing schools? If we could agree that it stands a good chance at being effective we could talk numbers. Maybe at that point it isn't realistic but we can't even get to that point and I have to wonder why. Is it because the NRA and not Biden suggested it?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Great State of Mediocrity
    Posts
    4,670
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    One thing I do think that the NRA has a point on is the people who fail background checks. Allegedly 70,000 people failed background checks last year but only 40 people were prosecuted.
    Absolutely.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hoboken NJ
    Posts
    57,258
    [QUOTE=Bridgeburner;6031215]
    I guess I just wish it was in the discussion, securing schools? If we could agree that it stands a good chance at being effective we could talk numbers. Maybe at that point it isn't realistic but we can't even get to that point and I have to wonder why. Is it because the NRA and not Biden suggested it?
    The problem is that it would be hideously expensive. We are talking 100,000 security personnel. All trained to use a firearm. All meeting fairly stringent competency checks. You are talking tens of billions of dollars. The truth is any sort of solution would need to be local. Many schools already have security personnel.
    The trouble with the world today is the intelligent people are full of doubt and the dumb people are full of confidence - Charles Bukowski

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.