weather icon 34° Fair
The Latest:

Del. Hope to Hold Town Hall on School Safety

by ARLnow.com | January 28, 2013 at 5:00 pm | 601 views | 105 Comments

Del. Patrick HopeDel. Patrick Hope (D-Arlington) will be holding a town hall meeting on school safety on Wednesday, Jan. 30.

Hope was recently appointed to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s Task Force on School and Campus Safety, which was created in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The task force has been charged with making recommendations regarding improvements to school safety practices at K-12 schools and at colleges and universities. Such improvements may include expanded use of school resource officers or security guards, new state or local programs or policies, and improvements to Virginia’s mental health system.

From 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, interested parents, students and residents are invited to discuss school safety with Del. Hope at the Wakefield High School auditorium (4901 S. Chesterfield Road). Hope will give an update about the work of the task force and listen to concerns and recommendations from the audience.

Hope said the discussion will be wide-ranging, and may incorporate topics beyond the scope of the task force. For instance, the task force was not charged with making recommendation regarding firearm policies, but Hope said guns may still be discussed.

“I don’t see how you can talk about safety in classrooms without talking about gun control… It’s a little like talking about trying to cure lung cancer, but you can’t talk about smoking,” Hope told ARLnow.com. “If you really want to solve the problem, you can’t leave gun control aside.”

Hope said he will likely hold at least one more town hall meeting before the task force concludes its work this summer. The task force’s relatively short time frame, he said, is the reason the controversial topic of gun control was not included in its agenda.

Print Friendly and PDF
  • novasteve

    Will anyone dare ask the question what is wrong with society? Why was it that when I was a kid we had realistic toy guns, cap guns, etc. When my dad was in high school they had shooting clubs in schools. When I was a kid, the CUB scouts, not just the boy scouts, would go to firing ranges. When I was in middle school we would do archery during PE class…. YET, we didn’t have school shootings. Why was this case? We also didn’t have all this nannying re: what food you could eat, yet very few kids were obese. Is there any chance there’s a societal problem and it’s not guns to blame? And gun control not being included in the agenda, how well is that working in places where there is gun control? Guess how many people were murdered with banned guns in chicago this weekend?

    • Mary-Austin

      There have always been and always will be sick people in our society. What we have to do is stop making it as easy as possible for them to commit mass murder.
      One of the major societal problems that does need to be talked about is the dangerous influence of the NRA and their money.

      • Jason S.

        I guess your answer to Steve’s question is “never”.

        • Mary-Austin

          People are already “daring” to ask that question. As long as crazy people can get guns that can kill 25 people a minute this will continue to happen.
          The people that want to only talk about society and not guns don’t seem to offer any practical solutions.

      • KalashniKEV

        I don’t understand the constant references to the NRA as some kind of monolithic, alien organization. The NRA *is* the people, and the money is our money, freely given to defend our rights. (Unlike Obama’s recent EO, which uses money stolen from the public coffers to push the Gun Control agenda)

        • grace

          The NRA is *not* the people.
          The US population is currently around 315 million.
          The NRA membership is 4.25 million. Membership for one year is $35.
          Where does the money for lobbying come from?
          The Violence Policy Center (report from April 2011) estimates that since 2005 the gun industry has given the NRA something between 19.8 and 52.6 MILLION DOLLARS.
          And they thank you very much for your purchase.
          No please stop talking about the NRA as the people’s choice.

          • KalashniKEV

            Sorry Grace but VPC is a known Fraud Factory. Are you familiar with the “Round Up” program? Every time I buy, say, $257.23 of ammunition, I choose to “Round Up” and .77 cents is donated to the NRA on my behalf, by the manufacturer. It’s completely voluntary, and if I really needed .77, I would just not participate. I’ve been doing this for many, many years, although I have not always maintained a current NRA membership. That’s what’s great about the organization- they fight for your constitutional rights whether you are a member or not, or even whether you own a gun or not! There are over 80 million gun owners in the US, only about 5% of them have current NRA memberships.

          • Grace

            http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/13/a/1088/schoen_summary_memo_-3.pdf

            I hope all your time spent on rebuttals isn’t keeping you from the range today.

          • KalashniKEV

            LOL… the LibCloud? Douglas Shoen is the the wannabe Democrat Karl Rove.

            He’s a Democrat political strategist with a polling firm that helps create skewed results to fuel Fraud Campaigns. I guarantee you there’s something “unique” about those 200 NRA members that we don’t know- like they were polled at the Democratic National Convention or something.

        • corporations are people

          Since 2005, corporations–gun related and other–have contributed between $19.8 million and $52.6 million to the NRA as detailed in its Ring of Freedom corporate giving program. In a promotional brochure for the program, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre promises that the “National Rifle Association’s newly expanded Corporate Partners Program is an opportunity for corporations to partner with the NRA….This program is geared toward your company’s corporate interests.”

          • KalashniKEV

            Lots of cash registers ringing all over, lots of money being donated on behalf of the People. Ruger also has the “Million Gun Challenge” which donates $1 to the NRA for every gun sold in a year, whether or not the buyer was a member of the NRA. They sold over 1,250,000 guns.

        • drax

          Not any more. It’s now a monolithic, alien organization.

          • KalashniKEV

            Says you. I’m proud to be a member of an organization that supports my rights.

          • drax

            But that’s not all it does. And it does it in a really bad way. I’d pick a better organization if I were you. There are alternatives, such as the 2nd Amendment Foundation.

          • KalashniKEV

            I used to think that the GOA was the way to go, because they were “the nation’s only ‘No Compromise’ Gun Group.”

            Now that our rights are under assault, I recognize the strength of not dividing our forces and backing the strongest fighter in the ring (kind of the opposite of what I advocated last election). Unlike the election though, where I only got *one* vote (another disadvantage of being against Obama ;) ) I am free to support as many Pro-Freedom and Constitutional Rights groups as my budget will allow.

        • Mary-Austin

          Let’s be honest here the only purpose of the NRA is to promote as many guns as possible. All it does is lobby on behalf of the gun industry which is where their money comes from.
          Public safety and shooting victims are not a concern. In fact you are not supposed to talk about them until everyone has moved on.

          • KalashniKEV

            Mary- what you say is far from honest. The purpose of the NRA is to preserve our rights. They lobby on behalf of not only their current members, but for all Americans. With respect to public safety, don’t you think it’s a little scary when the only group offering Real solutions is a non-profit organization and the government solution does *nothing* to prevent future recurrence, but offers up the chains of slavery to those who would abide by the law?

    • jackson

      So what IS the answer, then? No snark, serious question. You throw out a lot of questions, but how would you change society back to what it was when you were a lad? Leaving blame out of it, what do you propose?

      • drax

        Hah. Good luck with that.

      • KalashniKEV

        I’ll take a shot at it- we need to fix what’s wrong with the way our culture is headed. Each successive generation we raise turns out more losers than the next. The Progressive Agenda celebrates dependency on others, and attacks individual responsibility and self confidence as an arrogant and threatening trait. We’ve seen it here on this very board- they call you a “Sociopath” for not plugging into the collective and suppressing your individuality, goals, thoughts, beliefs, and desires. Being accepted becomes more important than being you. All actions have to be reconciled with the peer group- who feels more comfortable making decisions for others than they do accepting responsibility for their own lives and making the hard choices. This makes them feel powerful to make a decision for someone else. It’s the same way little kids play before they reach maturity and start charting their own way. The Government takes on the role of the parent, and mitigates poor decision making and corrects for failure. In this way we prevent a child from ever “growing up” and generate hoards of broken, dependent “adult children.”

        • the right wing

          Um, yeah, about that spokesman job? Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

        • drax

          How did the progressives cause Adam Lanza to kill kids?

          • novasteve

            Wrong example drax. Yet again, you democrats focus on the rare school shooting, and ignore the fact that school aged kids get shot every single day in the USA in urban areas, but since they are not white and not suburban, the media ignores it. Why is there only outrage about gun violence in the rare situation and not the daily one? Guess how many people were murdered with guns in Chicago this weekend? Did you hear about them? THe progressive agenda creates the situation we have in cities, and in suburbs now because parents are being replaced by the state, and the results are not good. Or do you think society is improving?

          • KalashniKEV

            Adam Lanza was the outlier described above, and provides the perfect cautionary tale to their narrative. He was identified as being “not normal” early on and segregated from the group. Rather than make the effort to socialize the boy, and whip into shape, he was doped up on brain poison. When the government tried to take him out of the mainstream track and place him in a program, his mother did the foolish thing and home schooled the boy rather than fight back to keep him in the mainstream educational track. This is why the Progressive Bloc secretly took delight in the Sandy Hook massacre- it serves their big government and authoritarian interests. It is reported that a certain prominent female politician was in front of the TV cameras hawking her decade-old sick authoritarian legislation and singing her same tired old song *before the last body was removed from the school.* This is why we see the current Progressive push to steam roll legislation through while emotion remains high and before cooler heads, and logic prevail (Biden Group, NY Ban, Obama EOs). The Progressives *need* to bathe in these children’s blood and to capitalize on this tragedy to to get their agenda through- the same way the Right brought us the Patriot Act when it was “time for meaningful action.” And in this way they incrementally take away the People’s Freedom… bit by bit.

          • drax

            The example of the massacre that caused this entire debate is the “wrong example”?

            I know you run away from every question, steve, but that’s one of your worst excuses.

          • Jackson

            I guess Steve and Kev both missed the”Leaving blame out of it” phrase in my question. “Progressive Agenda” is a meaningless term. Blame liberals for society breeding people who shoot kids.

            I withdraw my question.

          • KalashniKEV

            You withdraw your question because you don’t like the answer?

            The Progressive Agenda is what’s different. That’s what’s destroying our values and culture and creating these killers. As Steve points out, this is not limited to spree killers. Unless we reverse course things are going to get worse. Most of the “solutions” being offered will only exacerbate the problem.

          • drax

            Kev, God help us if you ever become in charge of anything.

          • jackson

            Neither of you proposed a solution! You both pointed a finger at the “Progressive Agenda” like the whole problem in America is that children weren’t disciplined enough growing up.

          • KalashniKEV

            The solution is to fix what’s wrong. Reverse course on the Progressive Agenda. Teach our kids that hard work, discipline, effort, and success are positive traits and that slackerism and collectivism lead to ruin. Reduce the size of government. Simplify the tax code. Restore faith in the market and stabilize the economy. Outlaw the government employee unions. Hold the teachers accountable for results. End deficit spending.

            It’s a multifaceted problem that requires a multifaceted solution.
            (Or we could just continue to watch Rome burn)

          • drax

            To think we’re a nation ruined by progressive pansies is silly, but to think it causes gun violence is just loony.

          • KalashniKEV

            If knowing that the Progressive Agenda fuels gun violence is “Looney” then I must be Bugs Bunny…

    • drax

      Sigh.

      Yes, steve, you DID have school shootings back then.

      Your momma just didn’t tell you about them because she didn’t want to terrify you.

      Please stop making up your own facts.

      • novasteve

        They did not drax. AT least to the degree we have them today. Recall still the worst school killing in US history was a bombing. The TX tower shooting. YOu didn’t really start hearing about mass shootings until the post office shootings. In fact mass shootings used to be called “going postal” until they started taking place more at schools than in offices. Why is it that we have more school shootings now then in the past when you had much easier access to guns, when gets used to play with realistic cap guns. I even had a motorized watergun that looked exactly like an uzi. In fact all the kids in my neighborhood had similar ones, or M-16 types, yet we didn’t have school shootings. Why?

        • Jackson

          Because you grew up in Norway?

        • drax

          False, steve. You just don’t remember them, or weren’t alive. You didn’t actually go look it up.

          When you look at actual facts, not things made up in your head, we find that school massacres have been around a long long time, and and that they have gone DOWN recently:

          “The reality, experts say, is exactly the opposite: Violent crime in schools has decreased significantly since the early 1990s.

          Dewey Cornell, a clinical psychologist and education professor at the University of Virginia, says incidents like the one in Chardon, Ohio, and the infamous mass shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado and at Virginia Tech have reinforced a perception that schools are dangerous places.

          “But that’s just not true,” says Cornell, who has been examining school violence for decades. “I know on the heels of any school shooting, there’s the perception that violence is on the rise. It’s not. In fact, there’s been a very steady downward trend for the past 15 years.”

          http://www.npr.org/2012/03/16/148758783/violence-in-schools-how-big-a-problem-is-it

          • Eric

            When he talks about violent crime, is he talking about only mass shootings? Because I’m pretty sure those are going up since before the significant gun laws were put in place, and that is not what this guy is talking about.

        • jackson

          The internet and 24-hour news stations exist now, so shootings are covered immediately and in much more detail than when you were a child and probably didn’t watch the news at 6 or read the newspaper. Short answer: Shootings happened, but you were too busy being a kid to hear about them.

  • PaulB

    Knee-jerk task force is formed to discuss school safety after a mass shooting at a school, yet it will not talk about guns.

    This is the problem, nobody wants to talk about the real issue in society, which is how we brush mental illness under the rug. Schools, and the rest of society, would be plenty safe if we just had adequate funding devoted to treating people with severe mental illness. Not completely safe, but you can not guarantee anything, anywhere.

    We don’t have safety problems in our schools. We have unsafe people walking around in our society and we avoid helping them.

    • Bluemontsince1961

      Good point, Paul. If there can be many resources, options, and places for help for people that have cancer and other physical diseases, shouldn’t there be the same for those with mental illnesses? Mental illness is not the fault of the person that has it, and ignoring it, sweeping it under the rug, or stigmatizing people who have it does not solve or heal it.

      • NRA

        Yes, we should all be constantly monitored just in case our thought patterns start to deviate from the accepted norm. Just as long as we can still get assault weapons, because that’s what freedom is all about!

      • novasteve

        You talk about stigmatizing the mentally ill, but guess what will happen if they see a shrink under the proposed rules? They will run the risk of losing their 2nd amendment rights. Do you think that will encourage or discourage people from seeing a shrink? It kind of is like pilots and psychiatry. If a pilot gets treated for depression with medication, they are not going to be a pilot anymore. so do you think pilots have their mental illnesses treated?

        • drax

          Should we also have no drug testing for pilots?

          • DCBuff

            “If a pilot gets treated for depression…” This is a red-herring. Pilots (aka “airmen”) are required to undergo a comprehensive physical exam to obtain a medical certificate by an FAA-designated Aviation Medical Examiner. The medical certificate must be renewed every 3 years for airmen under 40 and every 2 years for airmen over 40. And, the issue is not whether pilots are treated for depression with medication, but rather if there exists certain diagnosed mental disorders (e.g., bipolar). By Steve’s logic, because we already have mentally ill people with guns we shouldn’t require the same level of societal protection as we do for pilots because pilots don’t have their mental disorders treated.

  • KalashniKEV

    Hope and Ebbin need to understand that you can’t weaken a target to the point where no one will want to attack it. The only way to deter attacks is by creating a hard site. The only way to respond to attacks is immediately. We need to close the time gap between when an attack begins, and when armed response arrives.

    And that’s the answer to securing our schools (and everything else we want to secure). It’s really that simple. Really.

    • Quoth the Raven

      No, because you’re acting as if these school shooters are rational, and that they look for “soft sites”. they don’t. They’re nuts. Hardering the site isn’t going to lessen the chances of an attack. But affecting the supply will. If they guy in CT had a single shot rifle instead of 30 round magazines, the carnage would have been a lot, lot less.

      • KalashniKEV

        No comment on this board has ever been more wrong- spree killers may be “nuts” in so much as they have orange hair, make radical extremest power point presentations, or can’t look you in the eye or shake your hand, but they have proven to be quite rational when it comes to planning and executing their attacks… and they almost *always* choose a Gun Free Zone (Unarmed Victim Zone) to carry out their attack. The only recent spree killing that has not occurred in a Gun Free Zone was Gabby Giffords, and Armed Response was *right-next-door.* The Gun Control agenda has nothing to do with making anyone safer, and none of the proposed legislation would have prevented Newtown. It’s like if Arlington wanted to stop all the bank robberies by making 5MPH zones around all the banking institutions- would create major traffic problems for those inclined to obey our laws, wouldn’t ever stop a bank robbery from occurring.

        • Hank

          Thanks KK – you just invalidated both of the main NRA arguments:
          1) Tactical response was right there – didn’t make any difference – yet that is what you are advocating as the solution for schools
          2)spree killers appear quite rational – yet the only other “solution” offered is to keep guns away from nutters (that you now admit you can’t identify)

          • malaka

            That’s because the NRA doesn’t really believe in either “solution” – they don’t realy believe there is a problem. These frequent mass shootings are acceptable to them…as is the daily toll of gun deaths throughout the nation. They just don’t care

          • drax

            And then there’s the whole “liberals are to blame for absolutely everything” thing that Kev has borrowed from steve today.

          • novasteve

            Drax: The destruction of the family and the replacement of it with the state, and the disasterous consequences of it are COMPLETELY the responsibility of the left. So long as they get votes because people are dependent upon government, the democrats are happy becaucse it keeps them in power despite the harms to society.

          • KalashniKEV

            1) Jared Lee Loughner could have killed more if armed response was awaiting dispatch 9 blocks away. Jared Lee Loughner could have killed less if Joe Zamudio was right there at the Safeway. The point is the cops were nowhere. Life is crazy like that. You can’t control everyone and everything.

            2) I never said I could identify spree killers, or as you say “nutters.” If there’s someone out there who can, they could certainly be part of the solution. I *can* identify mentally unstable individuals for investigation and possible detention- but I respect the Progressive’s rights.

          • Hee-Haw

            @N_S, what do you mean, exactly, by “destruction of the family”?

        • Quoth the Raven

          First of all, I refuse to believe that I win the award for “most wrong comment ever”. That bar is just too high.

          Under your rationale, then, the right thing to do is to turn every elementary school into a hardened fortress? And if there were a ban on high-capactiy magazines, the type of rounds he used, and assault weapons (like the one Lanza used), how would this dude have gotten the weapons? I get that criminals can always get weapons, but this guy wasn’t some drug lord with ready access to firepower. Sure, maybe he would have used something else, but by definition that “something else” would have been less destructive, and fewer lives would have been lost.

          The last thing Newtown needed was an armed rent-a-cop firing wildly through a bunch of kids. And with the quality of “guard” you would be able to hire, that’s precisely what you would get.

          • KalashniKEV

            You just set the bar higher with your hyperbole… Fortress? High Capacity Mags? Assault Weapons? Firing wildly?

            You sound like you’ve been conditioned to say those things, and I don’t fault your for it so much as the liberal machine which has programmed your mind. Securing a building doesn’t make it a “Fortress” unless every single bank, gov building, airport, sports stadium, night club, etc is a “Fortress.” The notion that not having security at all makes a place more secure is mind boggling. You can’t weaken a places defenses so much that no one will want to attack it. Also, Adam Lanza used standard capacity magazines in some of the most popular firearms in the United States. Not “Assault Weapons” but a plain old run-of-the-mill AR, like you can buy in any Walmart. The ammunition, as far as I know, was standard FMJ. He could have used a bomb and killed far more. Jared Lee Loughner could have run over a whole line of camped out movie goes in a Suburban the night before and killed far more. It’s clear that you don’t understand proximate cause, or action/ consequence. Lastly, you really make your self look foolish when you say that an armed guard in the school wouldn’t have been a HUGE benefit on that day. I mean… *seriously* do you believe what you type at all, or are you just repeating Progressive talking points?

          • KalashniKEV

            *James Holmes, not Loughner

        • drax

          No, I don’t think so. Whack jobs go shoot up courthouses full of armed guards and police stations full of armed cops and redneck bars full of armed rednecks too.

          • KalashniKEV

            Not really. Nope.

        • nutter identification department

          Actually it’s quite simple. Anyone who thinks they have an overwhelming need to posess an assault rifle fits the bill as a delusional paranoid so therefore should not hae access to these weapons.

          • novasteve

            Can you explain why? And what is “overwhelming need”? Is wanting one okay?

    • broken record

      good luck with that…perhaps another “simple” solution would be to not have weapons readily available that can kill 20 children and 6 adullts in less than 10 minutes (including breaking down the doors etc)

      • KalashniKEV

        Is it really that simple? I’m a law abiding citizen and my rights aren’t negotiable in any way. Not at all.

        MOLON LABE.

        • Josh S

          If you say so, Kev. Whether you want to believe it, or accept it, your rights are being negotiated for you all the time.

        • Mary-Austin

          Adam and Nancy Lanza were law abiding citizens until a month ago.
          So were all the kids and teachers they killed. I guess their rights don’t matter as much as the definition of the 2nd amendment you have made up in your head.

          • KalashniKEV

            Right, so on what condition would you deprive them of their rights? Is there thought crime yet? How would you perform due process?

      • novasteve

        you could easily do that with a bolt action in 10 minutes as well, plus are more accurate. should they get banned?

        • Quoth the Raven

          That’s crap and you know it. If he had a bolt-action instead of a fully automatic, don’t you think maybe someone could have jumped on him while he’s reloading? Or run away? It makes your argument sound silly when you make claims that are so far from reality. On an earlier post, KK was trying to claim that he could have easily killed just as many with a sword. Equally ridiculous. Less powerful weapons means fewer people killed.

          • Mary-Austin

            Exactly…the gun nuts always argue “oh he probably would have built a complex bomb or karate chopped everyone to death”. It’s just a coincidence that mass shooters choose guns.

          • novasteve

            he DID NOT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC weapon. It takes only 1.5-2 seconds to change a magazine. He attacked a room of children and women, unlikely anyone would jump him. If anything a bolt action is MORE powerful than an AR-15 weapon. If he used say an Enfield rifle, the 303 british round is much more powerful than .223. You’ve shown that you have no idea what you are talking about in just your first line when you claim he had a fully a utomatic weapon. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are just ignorant about guns. So do you think making decisions about gun rights based in ignorance makes good policy?

          • KalashniKEV

            A simple bomb or a simple bat or a tomahawk or spear could have killed as many or more. As I pointed out in that previous post, *there was no limiting factor* on the number he chose to kill except for his own will- there was no security at all and armed response was 20 min away.

          • KalashniKEV

            They don’t want to know what they’re talking about. Technical Details fall into the realm of Facts, and their position is based only on Emotion.

            Even if you explained what full auto was, or why having and adjustable shoulder stock makes a weapon no more deadly, they would just plug their ears and hum like spoiled children… or conveniently forget 2 minutes later.

    • Mary-Austin

      Almost everyone I have talked to that works in a school. There isn’t a single teacher or staff member in the school they would feel comfortable with having an assault weapon.
      If anything it would put more lives in danger. More guns means more unneccessary gun related deaths.

      • Mary-Austin

        *says the same thing

      • novasteve

        Given the suggestion is for them to have handguns, what did they say about that? If more guns are the problem, then why doesn’t the secret service give up its guns and they stop having armed protection for the Obama children? or are those guns magical?

        • Mary-Austin

          It’s still and idea most teachers wouldn’t like. How would someone with a handgun stored away be able to respond to and ambush by someone with an assault weapon anyway?
          And nice false equivalency about the secret service there.

        • WeiQiang

          … um, because there are known, actual threats to POTUS and his family?

          • KalashniKEV

            Ummmmmm… and all threats to our schools are unknown until an attack happens? So we shouldn’t bother to secure them at all?

            I’m glad you weren’t running the first Iraqi Election in ’05!

        • jackson

          Okay, separating everything else you have ever said on this board ever, bringing up the argument that Obama’s CHILDREN shouldn’t have armed protection is the single dumbest thing ever repeated here. Kev’s prize goes to you.

          • novasteve

            So Obama’s kids are more important than your own?

          • jackson

            Cute, Steve. I am not one of the most powerful persons on the planet. I am not the leader of a large nation. Terrorist organizations do not specifically target my family because of who I am.

            More important? No. Much more likely to be targeted for violence? Absolutely.

          • KalashniKEV

            I’m truly surprised.

            Should we give the Secret Service the day off on days that there is no known, credible threat?

            Again… this is positively mind boggling to me that there are some who argue that securing our schools is not a priority. Obama’s children are safe. Right now APS are not. Don’t you see a problem with that?

          • jackson

            So do we live in a nanny state where the government makes all our decisions for us, or do we live in a liberal state where government doesn’t have the guts to step up and hire armed guards to protect every school? Can you profess both?

          • dk (not DK)

            The argument that all children “deserve” the same protection that the children of US presidents get is patently ridiculous. If you are going to make this argument, please remember that they are not just under armed protection while at school but at every waking moment of their lives. They are surrounded at all times by security. Agents sweep public buildings before they enter. If you step near the child of a sitting president, you will be swiftly intercepted, if not taken down. Our tax dollars pay for this protection. It is not provided to any other American child. Are you arguing that it should be? That all children should have several armed agents assigned to them personally? That our tax dollars should pay for this? Alternatively, are you arguing that the children of sitting presidents should NOT be protected any differently from any other children? If you are not arguing these points, then please stop with this silly false equivalency.

  • novasteve
  • novasteve

    Question, how would Favola’s proposed law, taking away guns from someone accused, I repeat, ACCUSED, of a sexual related offense, for 72 hours, going to reduce school shootings?

    • jackson

      Sounds like that proposed law scares you a little.

      • novasteve

        Do you have anything other than slightly veiled personal attacks? How about TRY to answer the question instead of just attacking me?

        • Hee-Haw

          haha, thats a good one…asking someone else to answer a question. And his post is NOT a personal attack in any way, shape, form…

          • novasteve

            Yes, nothing personal attackish about implying I’m an alleged sex offender.

    • Quoth the Raven

      It wouldn’t. But does every gun control law have to relate to school shootings? Are there no other rationales out there?

  • KalashniKEV
  • Patrick

    The source of an individual’s ability to have guns is the 2nd Amendment, which starts with the words “A well regulated militia”.

    So why all the fuss about gun regulations? Either the 2nd Amendment applies or it does not — one cannot parse out favorable language and ignore the WELL REGULATED.

    • novasteve

      It says the MILITIA is to be well regulated, not the guns.

      • dk (not DK)

        Let me make sure I understand you. The guns should not be regulated, but the militia should be? It sounds like you are arguing that only members of a well-regulated militia have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

        • MarceyRd

          A purist reading of the amendment finds that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of all citizens that shall not be infringed upon (regulated), which the well regulated militia preface clause demands.

          So yes, that is an interpretation that can be made.

        • novasteve

          Then why didn’t they draft the 2nd amendment to make it so the arms were regulated instead of the militia? Or both? I only brought it up because Patrick brough up “well regulated” which refers to the MILITIA. Notice it didn’t say the people or firearms should be well regulated. There’s more to militias than weapons. Where they operate, where they live while on duty, what they can do, etc…

  • jb

    Options..repeal second amendment and outlaw civilian owndership bc rationale to prevent tyranny is a little ridiculous in drone and nuclear weapon world..

    Or..realizing purpose is no longer meaningful..keep 2nd amendment but let the liberal supreme ct we are going to evenually have shred it into unrecognizable tatters like the conservatives have the 4th. I am happy either way but feel sorry for law enforcement who is going to have to go round up guns over the next 20 years. But it is the will of the majority and it will eventually prevail corrupt NRA money or no. Economic disparity has a lot to do w our societal problems as much as any progressive agenda. I guess i would ask if you live in a country which is a democracy dont you have to agree that if the vast majority say no guns..you have to give them up. Or at that point do you not believe in democracy any more. I think conservatives are going to shoot themselves in the foot..pun intended..by refusing reasonable measures now. Like they have with every other issue which they are turning into losers for them.

    • novasteve

      Wrong. Liberals have a goal of outlawing weapons. They will incrementally try it. It’s like in VA now they have a proposal to ban smoking in cars with children younger than 15. If that were to pass, then logically the next step would be to ban smoking in homes with children, then to non detached residences. Because there’s an agenda, and they want their agenda passed. If you are diasrmed, you are more reliant on the government. That’s what democrats want.

    • KalashniKEV

      1) Have you ever operated on the modern battlefield under contemporary ROE? Let’s just imagine that there existed even a small number of pilots who would attack their own brothers and sisters in the name of a tyrannical government… what ROE would they be given? Since you mention the option of Obama using nuclear weapons on American citizens, you either haven’t thought this through very well, or have real Evil inside you. Which is it?

      2) Any tampering with the Second Amendment is extremely dangerous. Also, do you really think that local LEOs are hoping to slug it out with an armed patriot movement? Most cops will do *anything* to avoid showing up on a hot call- report false location, respond two blocks away and request assistance, etc. Assuming you had even a small number of LEOs who would violate their oath and were committed to the universal disarmament- how many would show up to work after they take 30% casualties serving a warrant? And then 10% the next day. And then 60% next week. How long would this reign of terror go on before all citizens were disarmed? 20 years you say? Economic disparity is created and maintained by the Progressive Agenda, and public assistance in the long term is actually more harmful to the recipient than the citizen from whom the money is thefted in the first place.

      As far as Democracy? My rights are protected by the BOR. They are not negotiable in any way. There’s not even going to be any discussion about it. Harry Reid made the wise choice to distance himself from Feinstein last week, and others will soon see that this is a third rail issue when the authoritarian Dems fully self destruct in the coming year.

      • malaka

        This “Armed Patriot Movement” of which you speak – is it patriotic to threaten LEOs?
        I hope the government will continue to protect me from people who think they need to protect me from the government. Such people are really mentally ill and paranoid.

      • WeiQiang

        wow. just wow. “Any tampering with the Second Amendment is extremely dangerous” = slug it out with an armed patriot movement.

        first, that’s ludicrous. either, by your perverse definitions, a patriot IS armed and you’re being redundant OR you are the textbook example of what is wrong with the fetishized weps industry. EVERY scenario you bring up is about some mythical epic conflict between big government [that has been emasculated in its regulatory functions over the past 50 years] and an equally mythical group of heroic owners of fetishized weps who are my last hope for freedom against tyranny.

        listen to yourself … 30% casualties … attacking their brothers and sisters. if you got as exorcised about your fellow Americans who are impoverished or disabled or obese or less educated than you as much as you try to maintain this mythical heroic image of gun-porn addicts, you would have save money on your weps AND the country would be a better place. i hope that you’re younger than 25 and you just don’t have perspective. otherwise, you’re scary … like the rest of the gun-porn addicts.

        here’s another scenario: you live in Arlington. you’re a tech-savvy American patriot with a good job – and, ok, a gun or several. you own and maintain a car … a BMW, but you won’t let novasteve know that. you like eating out, you patronize businesses in Arlington [just not the froyo place], you have FiOS in your condo, you do some shopping on line, you maintain an online subscription to MMA Weekly … to Wash Times … Guns&Ammo … Motor Week … and Marie Claire, for good measure.

        what we already know is that the Republican National Committee [and probably the DNC] know all this and more. they know where you work, where you’re from, what you like to do and a lot of other things. if the gov’t wants to know this and – in your mythical world – act on it nefariously, they’ll collect the info and act. your guns don’t matter. in your mythical scenario, you’ve already lost. it’s just that the NRA keeps you distracted and focused on all of these specious justifications for buying more guns.

        in the real world, it maybe a good idea to have a personal wep for home defense. that’s up to the individual. semi-auto military-wannabe weps are just a ruse that you armed patriots fell for, using the dues that you pay to the NRA. i’m not in favor of disarming anyone – except the criminals and cray-cray folks. to me, the problem is that the gun-porn industry sells itself on the fact that weps are the solution to a bunch of crazy hypotheticals. i don’t think it’s a coincidence that this craziness is sold primarily to men, who dutifully line up to by more weps, mags and ammo at the mere whisper that their manhood might be threatened. maybe a little less MMA and a little more Marie Claire.

        • Mary-Austin

          Excellent analysis!

×

Subscribe to our mailing list