BBP after your last post we are more on the same page. The reason that I get so worked up is that the current system of weapons free zones has caused more harm than it has prevented. There has been as many school shootings in the last 3 years as in the previous 20. This is a fact not a theory. It is extremely disturbing and made even worse by the fact there is nothing in place to reverse the trend.
My first wife went to school in inner city Tulsa and I went to school in a small town farming community. She was used to the idea of armed police officers in the hallways of her school because she was there when the race riots were going on. To me, the idea of armed police in the hallways of a school were so foreign that I just never would have dreamed it. Hell, I grew up in Mayberry. We went to school with the black kids already. We didn't know what a race riot was. I only tell that story to just show that security in schools isn't something that is new. We had kids in danger in the 60's and 70's and we dealt with it by providing more professional security for our kids. Not by arming every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walks in or out of the place.
And to reverse the trend we need to figure out what we even CAN work on. This school security stuff is the symptom. The problem is those homes that those troubled kids you were talking about live at. That's where that behavior comes from. Until we learn to value the right things, we could all have bodyguards and we still wouldn't/won't be safe. That's what we should be arguing about, not friggin guns.
BKB
I've stayed out of this for the most part as I'm aggravated enough by douche-baggery at work today and don't need it from my virtual water cooler. But, my issue is the Federal government deciding a one-size fits all answer on this issue is appropriate. Clearly, what's appropriate in Big Sky's district is different from what's appropriate in an inner city and localities are perfectly able to figure this out on their own. Interestingly enough, the I looked up the history of the law and it was originally introduced by Joe Biden (of the fire a warning shot into the night fame) and signed into law by none other than...
Wait for it....
George Bush the Elder. Go figure.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Raoul Duke
That's where that behavior comes from. Until we learn to value the right things, we could all have bodyguards and we still wouldn't/won't be safe. That's what we should be arguing about, not friggin guns.
More pie in the sky Pollyanaisms.
Yes, we WILL be much safer with more bodyguards. Good gosh, man........are you that dense? Or just being obtuse?
Do you honestly, seriously, really think that the answer to TODAY and TOMORROW's safety in school issue for Troy and mine and your grandkids is to fix the troubled-home problem in America? And we ain't gonna argue about that, cause we all agree on that!! No arguments! It is indeed the guns that we NEED to argue about.
You protect yourself and your grandkids with words. Good luck, Mr. Ideology.
Sorry, but when kids are involved, I get hot.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
By my count you are now:
a: sick
b: mad
And CD, you KNOW that neither of the Bushes were 'true' Republicans. Haven't you figured that out by now? It was the liberals that screwed it up man!
BKB
Don't get me started on folks questioning other people's "republicanism". Half the folks on the web would call Ronald Reagan, the Father of modern Republicanism, a RINO if he were still alive today.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Raoul Duke
Heck I know! He even gave amnesty to a bunch of Mexican illegals too! And did it without the congress damn him!
BKB
Yeah, he shoulda been more Republican, like JFK!!!
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Ike was my favorite RINO Republican in modern history. Grew government and social programs out the wazoo and gave us Richard Nixon!
What a gift he had.
In fact, what Republican president have we ever had that shrank the size of government and reduced our deficits? Can you tell me who that might have been?
BKB
No President is capable of shrinking Government. And all fiduciary matters must originate in the House, not the Executive Branch.
So, it's a trick question. Answer is "nobody".
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Well, the Democratic presidents have been the smallest spenders by a LONG shot since Eisenhower.
BKB
As I said, NONE of them are capable of spending a dime...........or saving a dime. It ain't their job.
And yeah, Jimmy was great at not creating the Dept of Energy and spending and having 17% inflation. A great guy!
P.S.
I never rank Presidents by the economy that existed when they were in office.......or by any monetary means. Right is right, no matter what it costs. And wrong is wrong, even if it's free.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
You never accept any facts other than your own. Here's some actual facts on spending by president. Of course, none of them are to blame unless they are Democrats of course. But just so we know who the creators of 'you and your Government' are.
BKB
presidents.jpg
That's unfair.
My statement is accurate. No President can spend a dime. They can PROPOSE, but not spend until appropriated. That was my point.
You don't remember, but I hammered 43 incessantly for spending too much and having too many 'programs'. Clinton was a passive recipient of a blowup technological economy, IMHO.
They all PROPOSE too much spending.....Democrats on wasteful social programs, and Republicans on wasteful wars.
Nonetheless, I'd challenge any chart that has Obama making money rather than spending it.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
As usual, when common sense is pressed the spin is spun and move away from the subject.
To Everything, turn, turn, turn
There is a season, turn, turn. turn.....
A Government that pays people to do nothing destorys their willingness to do anything!
And since you seem to love 'facts' but only when they make sense to you, here's a valid explanation of your 'facts'......but of course you'll pooh-pooh them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmi...pender-of-all/
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
It's ok, Cappy. I'll take on any and all subjects. I'm a multi-tasking uber-Conservative nutbag.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
That's no valid explanation for anything. Are you kidding? Let's remove outlays from Defense from the calculations? As if defense spending is totally out of control of a president. Those are facts. Thats a bunch of massaged data put forth by a libertarian who makes his living appearing on TV. At least I presented data that was put forth by a real economist.
BKB
Dang, you're a uber-conservative nutbag? There we go agreeing again.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Raoul Duke
Should I add 'chagrined' yet?Originally Posted by BarryBobPosthole
BKB
Yes I am.
And you did exactly as I predicted. Thanks. Makes me a correct type of uber-conservative nutbag.
And sure, add that......I enjoy being called names.
I must.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Chicken Dinner sometimes you crack me up.
You're probably on a list somewhere too.
Enjoy your audit, Teabagger.
BKB
Any time, Troy. Any time.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Raoul Duke
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote