Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberPosts: 5,486 Senior Member
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service
When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

Adam J. McCleod


«1

Replies

  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    This is a recurring theme where our politicians and the extremely wealthy exempt themselves from the same policies that are "for our benefit". What utter HYPOCRISY.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    Sidwell Friends is a liberal school for liberal kids. Why does ANYTHING they do surprise you? Liberals always rationalize for themselves what they deny to others. Nothing new here.
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,733 Senior Member
    I can see the President's children getting extra protection, seeing as they are High Value Targets for any enemies of the nation. However, I assume this school's exclusivity does not come from "The President's Kids Go Here."
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    I can see the President's children getting extra protection, seeing as they are High Value Targets for any enemies of the nation. However, I assume this school's exclusivity does not come from "The President's Kids Go Here."

    :agree: You got a pretty good haid on yer shoulders LT, by the time you make Major you'll be 'Good To Go':jester:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    This should not surprise anyone. Liberals fall into two categories - those who are already 'the elite,' and those who are 'climbing the ladder.' The more restrictions they place on the unenlightened masses, the more exalted are their own positions.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    The problem with "climbing the ladder" is that it involves standing on the shoulders of the folks they're supposedly trying to protect. Every time one reaches up to pull himself up, they stomp on his fingers. Gotta keep a big permanent underclass down there to support the few "limousine liberals" on the top tier. Hypocrites!
    Jerry
  • lightkeeperlightkeeper Member Posts: 168 Member
    bisley wrote: »
    This should not surprise anyone. Liberals fall into two categories - those who are already 'the elite,' and those who are 'climbing the ladder.' The more restrictions they place on the unenlightened masses, the more exalted are their own positions.

    I couldn't agree more! One of those already elite , Pres. Obama's buddy Rahm Emanual just made a speech condemning the NRA & the concept of armed guards in schools as being dangerous by putting more guns in the public spaces.
    Mayor Rahmfather's kids attend a school that has armed guards for years.
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    Sorry but IMO this is another MOOT debilitating point AGAINST US, I am a diabetic, I need insulin, anyone residing in the White House needs a lot more protection than the average person regardless if we like, agree with them or not, same goes for other politicians and in many cases celebrities, ask John Lennon about this.

    Please let's stop with those "points" we find "cute" and expect a "what a boy" from those that are on the same page as us and that are seen as weakness on the other side and treat this as it is, a very serious matter that has to be backed with intelligence and facts.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    What a load of BS bruchi, everyone's kids need to enjoy a basic level of protection...a level of protection that the anti-gun liberals DO Not want them to have. No one has an issue with the Presidents kids having an extra level of protection.

    Do you not notice the hypocrisy involved in the fact that that a large number of anti-gun liberals place their children in schools where they are protected by guns while actively working to ensure the same level of protection is denied to the children of the common scum...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,249 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    What a load of BS bruchi, everyone's kids need to enjoy a basic level of protection...a level of protection that the anti-gun liberals DO Not want them to have. No one has an issue with the Presidents kids having an extra level of protection.

    Do you not notice the hypocrisy involved in the fact that that a large number of anti-gun liberals place their children in schools where they are protected by guns while actively working to ensure the same level of protection is denied to the children of the common scum...

    Let them eat cake........Hey why is that guillotine set up over there?
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    What a load of BS bruchi, everyone's kids need to enjoy a basic level of protection...a level of protection that the anti-gun liberals DO Not want them to have. No one has an issue with the Presidents kids having an extra level of protection.

    Do you not notice the hypocrisy involved in the fact that that a large number of anti-gun liberals place their children in schools where they are protected by guns while actively working to ensure the same level of protection is denied to the children of the common scum...

    Yes all children, using your choice defeating words: "even children of the common scum" deserve to have a safe environment around them 24/7, not only at schools and folks will place their children in the best schools and environments their pockets will allow them to do so, that is more a matter of one's bank account and this inclues all of us and wealthy folks as well.

    Fact is that some folks due to their high profile positions and a lot of hate out there need additional protection, you just don't like the guy presently at bat on the White House and use an hypocritical, biased cheap shot perhaps looking here for a pat on the back and we have to be above that.

    If this had occurred with a republican PRO GUN president you liked in the White House with 10 times the protection for his family and the "other side" used this to spin and attack him as AS YOU ARE DOING HERE, you would be in a fit due to them doing so.

    Please let's remember that this is an open forum, it is not about you or me, let's not do more damage to our right, it is already on quite unstable ground..
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,156 Senior Member
    bruchi wrote: »
    Sorry but IMO this is another MOOT debilitating point AGAINST US, I am a diabetic, I need insulin, anyone residing in the White House needs a lot more protection than the average person regardless if we like, agree with them or not, same goes for other politicians and in many cases celebrities, ask John Lennon about this.

    Please let's stop with those "points" we find "cute" and expect a "what a boy" from those that are on the same page as us and that are seen as weakness on the other side and treat this as it is, a very serious matter that has to be backed with intelligence and facts.

    And you missed the point Bruch... They had armed guards (not Secret Service) before the Pres kids enrolled, they will have armed guards after the Pres's kids leave.
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    And you missed the point Bruch... They had armed guards (not Secret Service) before the Pres kids enrolled, they will have armed guards after the Pres's kids leave.
    :that:
    It's more than just the President who's trying to restrict firearms. It's the parents of some of the other children at the school, too.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    bruchi wrote: »
    If this had occurred with a republican PRO GUN president you liked in the White House with 10 times the protection for his family and the "other side" used this to spin and attack him as AS YOU ARE DOING HERE, you would be in a fit due to them doing so.

    Please let's remember that this is an open forum, it is not about you or me, let's not do more damage to our right, it is already on quite unstable ground..

    Careful about the assumptions you make..you don't know me.....As far as I'm concerned, this has less to do with the current resident of the While House and more to do with the rampant elitism and sense of entitlement that exists within the political class. Republican, Democrat, Independent...I don't care... Pucker up and kiss their behinds if you will...ain't happening here...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    bruchi wrote: »
    Sorry but IMO this is another MOOT debilitating point AGAINST US, I am a diabetic, I need insulin, anyone residing in the White House needs a lot more protection than the average person regardless if we like, agree with them or not, same goes for other politicians and in many cases celebrities, ask John Lennon about this.

    Please let's stop with those "points" we find "cute" and expect a "what a boy" from those that are on the same page as us and that are seen as weakness on the other side and treat this as it is, a very serious matter that has to be backed with intelligence and facts.

    Once again, your abilty to look past or even ignore the point simply amazes me. Yes, of course the president's children need to be protected. I doubt anybody here would say otherwise. On the other hand, if it's obvious to the elitist gun-haters that armed guards in their school can be benficial to the well-being of their children, why couldn't the argument be made that the same would be true in other schools, for other children?
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Once again, your abilty to look past or even ignore the point simply amazes me. Yes, of course the president's children need to be protected. I doubt anybody here would say otherwise. On the other hand, if it's obvious to the elitist gun-haters that armed guards in their school can be benficial to the well-being of their children, why couldn't the argument be made that the same would be true in other schools, for other children?

    I understand fully that questions as this will arise due to the tragedy that happened and that can be a good thing, if they come form the right place but I have a feeling that neither the topic originator or you searched out how many folks have made the security detail of precious presidents children, those liked and disliked as well before posting or agreeing with this topic?

    I wonder how you go from the present president's children needing protection as a negative which is the intent of the topic as the children of every president before him have needed so to now all children needing protection?

    Answer is simple, bias and much worst, opportunism, using a tragedy for a political agenda due to not liking the guy now in the White House, grasping at straws to critique him and that is not helping us one bit when such moot points are presented.

    Then there are more important things than saving face...

    What about this, instead of attacking the "disliked" present president by using the protection given to his children when at school which is standard procedure the point made is that as ALL PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN including those you like and dislike have had protection while at school so all children should have the same?

    This is where the point clearly becomes BIASED AN MOOT and I must repeat opportunistic, it erases all the credibility and sensibility we have.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    You're just not paying attention...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    bruchi wrote: »
    I understand fully that questions as this will arise due to the tragedy that happened and that can be a good thing, if they come form the right place but I have a feeling that neither the topic originator or you searched out how many folks have made the security detail of precious presidents children, those liked and disliked as well before posting or agreeing with this topic?

    As the topic originator, I will speak up considering how thick you are. The point was made VERY clear to you by other posters, so I didn't think I'd have to enter the fray.

    THIS ISN"T ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN!!!! It is about people like David Gregory that use their celebrity/media status to disparage the NRA for merely suggesting having armed personnel around school children. The thought that celebrities (NOT TALKING ABOUT THE EFFIN' POTUS) deserve more protection than the rest of us is lunacy. They chose that life, just as I chose mine. Celebrities will rally against citizens with guns while they have armed protection. Sidwell School is just another example.

    One more time: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE G-D PRESIDENT!
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    Maybe I also like guns but come from a different planet!

    If the agenda of your topic was other than to attack Obama perhaps that part should had been the title of the same as you did so on your other topic clearly about this Gregory (expletive) guy, maybe just a part of it?

    Again I must come from another planet where our minds are quite simple.

    Clearly we see this from different places, or just limit ourselves to a polarized simplistic view of the actual picture the topic title paints and entails, then there's the damned need to save face...

    One thing I do wonder when I go against the forum's accepted "sacred" current is if anyone here actually also sees anything at all from my "place" but damned peer pressure keeps them from saying so?

    Maybe grow a spine and chime in? Not holding my breath to wait here....

    I gather "enough" from my side of the fence.
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 8,109 Senior Member
    bruchi wrote: »
    Clearly we see this from different places, or just limit ourselves to a polarized simplistic view of the actual picture the topic paints and entails, then there's the damned need to save face...

    One thing I do wonder when I go against the forum's accepted "sacred" current is if anyone here actually also sees anything at all from my "place" but damned peer pressure keeps them from saying so?

    Maybe grow a spine and chime in? Not holding my breath to wait here....

    Hold your breath Bruchi..............Leaving aside my pro gun stance, I dont really have a horse in this race cos I dont face the thought of having my 'gun rights' curtailed by my govt at this time.

    I decided, after reading your latest post, to go back and read this thread from the point of a 'furriner' and apply an objective outlook.

    The situation is this.

    There are a bunch of people trying solve a problem that faces the nation (USA).
    There are a number of actions they could take.
    One of these actions involves placing armed guards in schools to protect children.
    Those in power refuse to consider this course and instead, are blaming inanimate objects for what I perceive is a human problem and a mental health issue.
    At the same time, those who are against armed guards in schools, send their children to a school that, for a number of years has had armed guards protecting it.

    The issue is clouded somewhat by the fact that the biggest cheese in the land who, for other reasons, by his status, is entitled to a level of protection for him and his family that is well above what any other citizen is entitled to. He sends his kids to the same school. The big cheese and his offspring would have that protection available no matter where his kids were educated.

    It seems to me that, those who are about to make a decision against armed guards in all schools are being hypocrites.
    If it is not good enough to protect all children at learning institutions with armed guards, then surely, they should do away with every armed guard in every school...including the one they send their children to.

    The irony is that, these people were elected by the masses, to a position that is well paid, on the basis that they would make rational decisions on matters that affect those that elected them. They obviously believe that it is rational to have their children protected by armed guards...........yet dont apply that rationale to those they are elected to represent.
    They are using the money that the masses are paying them for their services, to keep their kids safe.

    They have 3 choices in the matter in my view...
    1. Put armed guards in every school.
    2. Give every parent enough money to enable them to send their kids to an armed school.
    3. Ban armed guards from all schools based on their belief that this is not a solution to the problem.

    Maybe I am missing something obvious. Please enlighten me as to what it is.
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,156 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    They have 3 choices in the matter in my view...
    1. Put armed guards in every school.
    2. Give every parent enough money to enable them to send their kids to an armed school.
    3. Ban armed guards from all schools based on their belief that this is not a solution to the problem.

    Maybe I am missing something obvious. Please enlighten me as to what it is.

    4) Keep the Federal Government out of schools COMPLETELY, and let the individual states run their own school systems.
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    Hold your breath Bruchi..............Leaving aside my pro gun stance, I dont really have a horse in this race cos I dont face the thought of having my 'gun rights' curtailed by my govt at this time.

    I decided, after reading your latest post, to go back and read this thread from the point of a 'furriner' and apply an objective outlook.

    The situation is this.

    There are a bunch of people trying solve a problem that faces the nation (USA).
    There are a number of actions they could take.
    One of these actions involves placing armed guards in schools to protect children.
    Those in power refuse to consider this course and instead, are blaming inanimate objects for what I perceive is a human problem and a mental health issue.
    At the same time, those who are against armed guards in schools, send their children to a school that, for a number of years has had armed guards protecting it.

    The issue is clouded somewhat by the fact that the biggest cheese in the land who, for other reasons, by his status, is entitled to a level of protection for him and his family that is well above what any other citizen is entitled to. He sends his kids to the same school. The big cheese and his offspring would have that protection available no matter where his kids were educated.

    It seems to me that, those who are about to make a decision against armed guards in all schools are being hypocrites.
    If it is not good enough to protect all children at learning institutions with armed guards, then surely, they should do away with every armed guard in every school...including the one they send their children to.

    The irony is that, these people were elected by the masses, to a position that is well paid, on the basis that they would make rational decisions on matters that affect those that elected them. They obviously believe that it is rational to have their children protected by armed guards...........yet dont apply that rationale to those they are elected to represent.
    They are using the money that the masses are paying them for their services, to keep their kids safe.

    They have 3 choices in the matter in my view...
    1. Put armed guards in every school.
    2. Give every parent enough money to enable them to send their kids to an armed school.
    3. Ban armed guards from all schools based on their belief that this is not a solution to the problem.

    Maybe I am missing something obvious. Please enlighten me as to what it is.

    Good post Alec!....maybe if you make the type size REALLY BIG, it will sink in.....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 8,109 Senior Member
    Ok, Jayhawker, I can do that..................



    Hold your breath Bruchi..............Leaving aside my pro gun stance, I dont really have a horse in this race cos I dont face the thought of having my 'gun rights' curtailed by my govt at this time.

    I decided, after reading your latest post, to go back and read this thread from the point of a 'furriner' and apply an objective outlook.

    The situation is this.

    There are a bunch of people trying solve a problem that faces the nation (USA).
    There are a number of actions they could take.
    One of these actions involves placing armed guards in schools to protect children.
    Those in power refuse to consider this course and instead, are blaming inanimate objects for what I perceive is a human problem and a mental health issue.
    At the same time, those who are against armed guards in schools, send their children to a school that, for a number of years has had armed guards protecting it.

    The issue is clouded somewhat by the fact that the biggest cheese in the land who, for other reasons, by his status, is entitled to a level of protection for him and his family that is well above what any other citizen is entitled to. He sends his kids to the same school. The big cheese and his offspring would have that protection available no matter where his kids were educated.

    It seems to me that, those who are about to make a decision against armed guards in all schools are being hypocrites.
    If it is not good enough to protect all children at learning institutions with armed guards, then surely, they should do away with every armed guard in every school...including the one they send their children to.

    The irony is that, these people were elected by the masses, to a position that is well paid, on the basis that they would make rational decisions on matters that affect those that elected them. They obviously believe that it is rational to have their children protected by armed guards...........yet dont apply that rationale to those they are elected to represent.
    They are using the money that the masses are paying them for their services, to keep their kids safe.

    They have 3 choices in the matter in my view...
    1. Put armed guards in every school.
    2. Give every parent enough money to enable them to send their kids to an armed school.
    3. Ban armed guards from all schools based on their belief that this is not a solution to the problem.

    Maybe I am missing something obvious. Please enlighten me as to what it is.
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    4) Keep the Federal Government out of schools COMPLETELY, and let the individual states run their own school systems.

    ^This^ :win:

    I actually think this is what will happen, at least in some rural areas of Texas and other like-minded states...federal government be damned. The only reason it wouldn't is that this type of thing rarely happens here, already. One incident where an armed school employee stopped one of these disasters before it really got rolling would make a huge difference in parent attitudes...if any media outlet would cover it as it should be (unlikely).
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,914 Senior Member
    You take things so literally....I love it.... :up::rotflmao:
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    Ummm....Alec, you forgot to type s-l-o-w-l-y. :roll2:


    Seriously though. Bruchi, I'm glad you're a memeber here. Really. I'd like to (someday) meet all the members here and that includes you. However, you and I fundamentally disagree on the proper method to approach this issue. It seems to me that you feel that, if we only used a 'reasoned' approach to this argument, the other side would be forced to realize that we aren't inbred ignorant morons whose only desire in life is to shoot it out with some imagined bad guy. The problem with that train of thought is that the other side is in no way shape or form interested in thinking of us any other way. That side thinks that, since they feel no 'need' for something, then you shouldn't either....but whether you do or don't is irrellevant because they don't.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • bruchibruchi Senior Member Posts: 2,581 Senior Member
    Obama et al did not made the decision to have their kids followed by a security detail same as no other previous president did, it comes with the position but he and those that exercise their right to have a different position must be singled out...

    No one here has an inside on why parents send their kids to any school, including one any president of the US sends or has sent his kids, maybe it is a great school, maybe is on the way to their office, maybe it is where their neighbors, coworkers, snob relatives send theirs an they "can't be less", maybe they figure it will be good for their kids to start networking early on, and yes maybe because there are armed guards as part of the staff, geez maybe even for a number of reasons, not just one, there are many motivations possible but whichever can be used as "ammo" to attack those that have a different position as ours on something must be the one as it serves bias.

    To me is simple to see the fact that as those in high positions of government need protection details, schools at a level that cater to their children and of high profile folks are to provide protection to their students, it is expected, logical and then common sense dictates a need for this and what one evil person does is just that what one evil person does and unfortunately seems this has been happening too often in the last decade and yes poor mental care and gun free zones have a lot to do with this, NOT where high profile folks send their kids to school and yes I do get the poor biased attempt to an analogy made here.

    Looking for where to place blame, more so if it feeds an agenda is not the reason why we need to find a solution to stop this tragedies but common sense goes out the window when the opportunity to milk a tragedy to deem evil on those "on the other side" hated for exercising their right to have a contrary opinion, position, belief as many here have cannot be wasted.

    Like it or not they have every right to hate guns even if it goes against something written hundreds of years ago, then we have every right to defend this. Let's just do our part in an intelligent manner instead of taking ourselves to a lower level?

    Orchidman one thing you might be missing from the picture is how hated this president is around here where a minority hangs out, yes we are a minority, a majority elects this folks to office, so for the desperate search for anything to lay evil on him and like minded folks that as us have every right to think and express positions even if contrary to ours. I do repeat myself a lot here figuring there is a need for this due to the audience...

    In my 52 years of course I have seen may politicians not liked, been the fodder to many demeaning jokes but this guy is simply HATED, the main reason for this something to be never spoken of much less admitted openly and that IMO does not condone the spirit of this topic.

    Placing this on an open forum demeans us as much as it demeans "the other side" when one of them says openly on a social network such an incredible stupid thing as that all NRA members ought to be shot!

    There is no immunity for any of that regardless of what side you sit on.

    Placing a hate, political agenda IMO is not the place to go and only degenerates the need for an actual solution, we don't need protection in schools because high profile figures have send their kids for eons to schools where protection is provided, we NEED protection because it is the most logical solution to an escalating recurring problem we are facing, we also have to eliminate all gun free zones as they have become a haven for this folks to do so much hurt.

    Political agendas, on BOTH sides, have nothing to do with this, dealing decisively with the problem should not be clouded by this, again this on both sides.

    Without losing any ground, maybe lets be the ones to take the high road here?

    I know we are all mad and scared of a serious gun ban coming to effect and how this disgrace will drive the majority to make this, even to escalate for too many folks if it comes to it to voluntarily give up their guns!

    It is SCARY as hell, IMO topics like this might set some of the steam off but they hurt us the minority a lot, we have to be stronger than that, it is NOT the time to fall into "CLEVER BIAS but to be firm, clear, strong, eloquent and rely on nothing but reality which is stronger than "our one sided truth".

    But all of this is pure nonsense, clearly there is no sense to anything I dare to express as using very large letters trumps all of it so I have finally been quite so firmly "put in my place"... I'll go into a corner now and sit with my back to all.

    Where do you store the dunce hat?




    The last comment was sarcasm for those too dense to figure it out, not to be conveniently confused with winning, which would be in the same league as using VERY large letters, talk about a knee jerk "pack mentality".
    If this post is non welcomed, I can always give you a recipe for making "tostones".
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,610 Senior Member
    *tap* *tap* is this thing on?

    Have you even bothered reading the posts that seem to be offending you so much?!
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    One incident where an armed school employee stopped one of these disasters before it really got rolling would make a huge difference in parent attitudes...if any media outlet would cover it as it should be (unlikely).

    That's already happened, at least twice that I can recall. It's just like the church shooting where an off-duty female security guard engaged a shooter and stopped the attack in its tracks- - - - -the liberal hypocrites in the news media sweep it under the rug. "Reasoning" with these kinds of people is like being nice to a rattlesnake or a scorpion in hopes that it won't do us harm- - - - -it ain't happening in this lifetime!
    Jerry
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Yeah, I guess there is no challenge in reporting on genuine heroes. The challenge that makes a career in today's media is in taking a completely useless person and hyping them into an icon for a mentally bankrupt generation of 'tweeters' and you-tubers.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement