Forum Post: Connecticut Residents agree with NRA on Armed Guards..
Posted 11 years ago on March 7, 2013, 5:31 p.m. EST by djericho
(-5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It's going to be a long time before we forget just how hard the ObamaMedia laughed at the NRA's Wayne LaPierre when he suggested that the answer to stopping mass-shootings is to place an armed guard in every school in America.
Oh, the lulz.
If you remember, in-between howls of ridicule, the same media that regularly defends and shrugs off Obama's annual trillion-dollar deficits were suddenly wringing their hands over the cost of such a program. But overall the media just found the whole idea silly, because Obama's policies are certain to include a magic that makes those capable of mass-murder willing to abide by gun control laws.
In the end, it was the media that made biased fools of themselves, which is probably why this Quinnipiac University poll released a couple of days ago has been ignored:
By a margin of 54 to 41, voters support placing armed guards in public schools, according to the poll’s findings.
That's a poll of residents in Connecticut.
Newtown is in Connecticut.
Apparently the media finds the moral authority of some "victims" more equal than others.
Hell - why not just build solid enclosures - with double walls and a deadly mote in between? With guard towers with overlapping fields of fire where anyone in no-mans land is a legitimate target.
Also, why is this right-wing propaganda being posted in an OWS forum?
That's what the "right wankers" do when they get here.
Every time they get banned, they come back and bitch about censorship, then they post stuff like this.
why do they keep getting banned? is it because of thier positions and opinions?
I can't say for sure, but I would think most of them can't keep their jerkiness down.
They do have a tendency to ignore certain realities, and insist that theirs are correct....there really is no talking to them.
They will talk trash in an attempt to run a thread out, so they can have the last word. Like it means they won something.
And NONE of them are here in support of OWS, nor those that do support OWS.
Mostly, they come here to needle what they call liberals, they practice what they heard on Limbaugh, or some such, either live or by word of mouth.
It's really rather sickening..
Freedom scares people. People dont like to hear what they dont want to hear.
Liberal, conservative, deaf, blind or dumb; it doesnt matter.
If the OWS protest is above freedom of speech, then why are any of us here?
WTF are you talking about?
Some asshole comes in here and insists some other asshole like breitbart has anything to add to the truth can be banned and I don't care.
Oh, and breitbart is just an example.
Purposeful lying has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech.
Nothing at all.
It is in fact a mockery of that right.
Someplace up in the stuff at the top of the page, it explains that this forum and it's posters are to be here in support of OWS.
So yep. That's what were supposed to be here for.
And what if my vision for ows differs from yours?
It would depend entirely on how you express it.
Are you speaking of a vision of, or for?
Do you think you will push it to the "right"?
Is that the plan, to divorce it from the left?
There sure has been a strong push to do exactly that, here on the forum.
My vision is generally independent of "left v right". See The Common Law Republic thread.
Yes, I even visited the other forum you presented it to.
As an outline is seems reasonable, yet it somehow reminds of those who push "natural law" precepts.
What is your objection to "natural law" precepts?
It's vague and it's proponents refuse to accept that it's roots are in the Catholic Church.
Pantheism or Panetheism.
No thanks. Make mine a Harvey Wallbanger.
It means everything is divine and/or the manifestation of god. All living being not only have the right to freedom, but all living beings are inherently free.
"natural law" is quite vague.
Why is it propaganda?
my bad, that wasnt directed at your post.
because freedom of speech is absolute
[Deleted]
If as you say freedom of speech is absolute then the posted story is not propaganda.
There is no accounting for the intelligence of the masses.
[Removed]
Consider that it was likely an NRA sponsored poll.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/mar/12/nra-steps-up-lobbying-efforts-against-gun/
Not surprisingly, a source in Connecticut was not to be easily found.
The NRA doesn't want them to know.
Quinnipiac is a right-wing pollster.
Schools in rough neighborhoods have been having armed guards at their schools for a long time. Cops just parked out in front.
How shallow that now its a suburban problem and we are saying that route is no good. It was fine for poor neighborhoods, but suburban schools are above it?
Until the country is willing to have an honest discussion of what we are, each and every one of us, then nothing is going to reverse what is happening on a social and cultural level.
The media certainly isnt going to do it, its not in "their" plan. So how do we have it?
'polls' said that Rick Santorum had a chance to be president. I dont take much stock in 'polls'.
And what about the 41% that said they dont support the proposition of the NRA? are they shit outta luck?
"And what about the 41% that said they dont support the proposition of the NRA? are they shit outta luck?"
Yep, just like the 48% of Americans who didn't vote for Obama.
I'm not for representative democracy. Everyone should represent themselves. That is why polls are complete mularky.
The USA is not a representative democracy. it's representative REPUBLIC.
Same difference. Take a high school Poly-Sci class.
"Res-publica" or Republic simply means 'public business'. A democracy is a government ruled by the majority, as opposed to rule by the minority. Instead of a 'direct' form of democracy, our national government is set up as a 'representative' form of democracy.
Actually over 50% didnt participate at all.
Everybody wins when our children are protected by armed professionals at their schools. How could anybody really argue with that?
Nobody wins when schools turn into armed compounds where dissent is discouraged. Guns have no place in a place that is supposed to be a perfectly free place to express one's opinion.
There is absolutely no correlation between armed school protection for our children and a " perfectly free place to express one's opinion."
One doesn't cancel out the other.
"dissent is discouraged" Dissent from what? What are you talking about?
A school would an "armed compound"?
Where do come up with shit?
Don't ask cabret to explain.He/she has a script, and is paid to follow it.
When you have guns potentially being pointed at you, you tend to not speak as freely as you would otherwise.
Teachers should be banned from posessing guns in school and cops in schools should not have guns either.
[Removed]