New Jersey Governor Christie slams NRA ad as "reprehensible"

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I honestly feel like tearing my hair out.

Does anyone, anywhere, disagree with armed security for the President and his family? No. Pointless waste of time to discuss.

Now, are we all understanding that, by having and relying on that armed security, he or anyone else is also implicitly accepting the premise that armed security is the most direct, definitive way to protect his family?

Yes? I hope?

Okay, so assuming we all got here, does anyone now still not see that it is a contradiction, even a hypocrisy, to then turn and roundly laugh off and dismiss the idea of armed security as the most direct and definitive way to protect all children in any school? **** regardless of how it is paid for because that isn't even at issue here ****

If the President and his flacks have adopted the position that armed security in schools not only isn't relevant to the post New Town discussion, dismissing it on its face regardless of who might pay for it or how, there is hypocrisy there (and possibly no shortage of stupidity). You don't see these people say "no, no need for guards, because we have regulated the problem away with magazine capacity limits and more background checks", because they don't for one second think that those sincerely solve, or even aim at, criminal behavior.

I mean, New York state or its individual counties having a sales tax add-on or something to pay for armed guards in their schools -- is anybody seriously going to say that would be a less effective way of protecting our schools from mass shootings than the insipid 7-round limit that is a de facto statewide ban on semiautomatic handguns?

Have you considered the flaw in your reasoning may be the quality of individual that you are advocating to patrol your children's school? The Secret Service is outstanding at what they do and those that are charged with protecting the President and his family are the best that the agency has to offer.

However, with an unfunded mandate, who exactly do you think would be hired to handle this job at your local school? Obviously, it's one thing to have a police resource officer who carries a weapon (something I've never been opposed to, as I think it also improves children's comfort level with police officers), but, in the absence of that or if there are insufficient funds for it, do you want volunteers who have nothing else to do during the school day and love the NRA so much that this is the way they think they can support it? I find that prospect scarier than the highly unlikely event of having someone approach my local school with an assault rifle, a death wish, and a desire to take out kids.

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

Have you considered the flaw in your reasoning may be the quality of individual that you are advocating to patrol your children's school? The Secret Service is outstanding at what they do and those that are charged with protecting the President and his family are the best that the agency has to offer.

However, with an unfunded mandate, who exactly do you think would be hired to handle this job at your local school? Obviously, it's one thing to have a police resource officer who carries a weapon (something I've never been opposed to, as I think it also improves children's comfort level with police officers), but, in the absence of that or if there are insufficient funds for it, do you want volunteers who have nothing else to do during the school day and love the NRA so much that this is the way they think they can support it? I find that prospect scarier than the highly unlikely event of having someone approach my local school with an assault rifle, a death wish, and a desire to take out kids.

Your logic applies to all police officers "protecting" the public. If they can do that they can protect schools as well.

And someone trained in police protection and gun skills would be preferable to having no one. Right?

[wgbgator]

Part of the administrations proposal is to further incentivize more school resource officers, or "armed guards" if you will. I'm not sure what the NRA and people defending the add are trying to argue.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, again, "funded or unfunded" is a trigger that all after it will be addressing the idea of how to pay for it as a substitute for the substantive question* of what would actually produce greater actual safety -- armed opposition to criminals, or deeper and entirely tangential regulations on everyone. My question for those who seriously think the latter is better is... why not ask Congress to pass a law against bad things happening?

*By the by, regulations cost money to draft, promulgate and, oh yeah, enforce. There is no "8+ round magazine dissolving powder" or a force field to prevent anyone bringing them in that NY will be able to use. And, FFS, even if there were those would themselves also cost money. All of which appears to be unfunded. The President's quasi-legislation is unfunded; his proposed, hopefully going nowhere actual legislation is also unfunded. So why must only the idea for armed guards come prefinanced?

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Your logic applies to all police officers "protecting" the public. If they can do that they can protect schools as well.

And someone trained in police protection and gun skills would be preferable to having no one. Right?

Actually, I think if you reread what I wrote, you may see that I made a distinction between a police officer, for whom I do not think there would be an issue, and a volunteer, for whom I would be particularly uncomfortable. If that was ambiguous, my apologies.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Well, again, "funded or unfunded" is a trigger that all after it will be addressing the idea of how to pay for it as a substitute for the substantive question* of what would actually produce greater actual safety -- armed opposition to criminals, or deeper and entirely tangential regulations on everyone. My question for those who seriously think the latter is better is... why not ask Congress to pass a law against bad things happening?

*By the by, regulations cost money to draft, promulgate and, oh yeah, enforce. There is no "8+ round magazine dissolving powder" or a force field to prevent anyone bringing them in that NY will be able to use. And, FFS, even if there were those would themselves also cost money. All of which appears to be unfunded. The President's quasi-legislation is unfunded; his proposed, hopefully going nowhere actual legislation is also unfunded. So why must only the idea for armed guards come prefinanced?

My use of unfunded mandate refers to a federal directive without any attached funds to the states to implement it.

HTH.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

Actually, I think if you reread what I wrote, you may see that I made a distinction between a police officer, for whom I do not think there would be an issue, and a volunteer, for whom I would be particularly uncomfortable. If that was ambiguous, my apologies.

Thoughts on a retired police officer from the same community. This is something I think might be a good idea.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Thoughts on a retired police officer from the same community. This is something I think might be a good idea.

Great idea. Pay them a little extra in addition to the pension they're already getting and keep them on the state employee health insurance plan, and you'll have no shortage of guys signing up. Get out of the house and flirt with the teachers while keeping an eye on the kids. And the wire from that Secret Service-looking earpiece in one ear actually leads to a radio playing the ballgame, or talk radio. Good duty!

[Minister_of_Information]

The point, clumsy as it was made, is that guns actually have protective utility. In other words guns DO make us safer, at least under certain conditions.

But I think the ad was a bad idea.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The point, clumsy as it was made, is that guns actually have protective utility. In other words guns DO make us safer, at least under certain conditions.

I don't think the issue of contention is the "point" but the vehicle for it, which has backfired in a most embarrassing way.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

I don't think the issue of contention is the "point" but the vehicle for it, which has backfired in a most embarrassing way.

Yes, especially as it appears that the administration had already conceded the point.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Yes, especially as it appears that the administration had already conceded the point.

I don't think "concede" necessarily fits here unless you know there intentions before they announced them.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

I don't think "concede" necessarily fits here unless you know there intentions before they announced them.

Well that's true, but you think they would have pulled the plug once Obama said yes to armed guards in schools.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Well that's true, but you think they would have pulled the plug once Obama said yes to armed guards in schools.

I honestly don't know.

[DaveFla]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I honestly feel like tearing my hair out.

Does anyone, anywhere, disagree with armed security for the President and his family? No. Pointless waste of time to discuss.

Now, are we all understanding that, by having and relying on that armed security, he or anyone else is also implicitly accepting the premise that armed security is the most direct, definitive way to protect his family?

Yes? I hope?

Okay, so assuming we all got here, does anyone now still not see that it is a contradiction, even a hypocrisy, to then turn and roundly laugh off and dismiss the idea of armed security as the most direct and definitive way to protect all children in any school? **** regardless of how it is paid for because that isn't even at issue here ****

If the President and his flacks have adopted the position that armed security in schools not only isn't relevant to the post New Town discussion, dismissing it on its face regardless of who might pay for it or how, there is hypocrisy there (and possibly no shortage of stupidity). You don't see these people say "no, no need for guards, because we have regulated the problem away with magazine capacity limits and more background checks", because they don't for one second think that those sincerely solve, or even aim at, criminal behavior.

I mean, New York state or its individual counties having a sales tax add-on or something to pay for armed guards in their schools -- is anybody seriously going to say that would be a less effective way of protecting our schools from mass shootings than the insipid 7-round limit that is a de facto statewide ban on semiautomatic handguns?

Similar to the physicians questioning patients in the other gun thread. Some simply either can't, or outright refuse to accept the disagreement. Instead, they twist it into a debate resembling NOTHING like the original debate.

This ad wasn't about the presidents children. It was about armed guards in a school.

[JerseyGator01]

On fiscal issues, Christie is a phony. It was reported today that NJ's long-term debt went up by $6 BILLION or 9% over last year. He's not paying pension obligations to state workers and it's only getting worse. But the media needs a token Republican.

Christie is just another over-hyped lawyer who hates budgets.

[rpmGator]

Protecting kids from over prescribed mental illness drugs, may be the job for gun owners to check up on doctors.

After all, its their drugs that are creating these acts.

[g8orbill]

I predict by early 2015, Christie becomes a dem and tries to take on hillary for the dem nomination for pres

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

I predict by early 2015, Christie becomes a dem and tries to take on hillary for the dem nomination for pres

Lol

Anyone who isn't a lockstep pub is a Dem in hiding, huh?

Trust me, the Dems don't want him.

[rpmGator]

By 2015 Christie will be his own zip code and will have caused a world wide pasta shortage.