A thought from watching Meet The Press’s host, liberal David Gregory

by Skip

  • I normally DVR the Sunday talking head shows to watch them when it is convenient for me
  • Today was the “convenient for me” as I had other things to do in the morning and then met with some of the Groksters in the evening as we got together for a “shoot & yak” time

Sidenote:  Hey, ‘Grok readers!  If we were to do this again, would you want to come and join in the range time and the politics / cultural / misc. discussion (er, the latter lasted much longer than what I originally told TMEW – her response as I headed north to home on the phone was “and you thought I thought it would be otherwise??” (with a wee smile in her voice)

So I am just watching them now.  A couple of takeaways from watching David Gregory:

  • True to form, he definitely fits Glenn Reynold’s (Instapundit) description of almost all of the media pundits nowadays: Democrat operatives that have media bylines.

  • In hectoring Wayne LaPierre of the NRA on Meet The Press, on what basis does David Gregory believe that IF, if only IF, Adam Lanza only had 10 round magazines when he went into Sandy Hook Elementary School, he would have not killed all those kids?  What was his fixation that the ONLY solution he was willing to get an Obama type concession from LaPierre was “yes, we can do away high capacity magazines”?  To the point of doing something that is illegal in DC and doing it on national TV – waving an AR-15 30 round mag in LaPierre’s face.  If *I* did that, I’m quite sure I would be in the clinker waiting to serve out my 1 year mandatory year with my new roommate, Bubba, in my new “steel bar” decor room.  But back to the question / issue that has gone unasked:

Let’s see, Lanza killed all of the adults FIRST (in the office and then the teacher).  Now, if he had been  forced into changing mags more often because of a reduced capacity, please explain this to me: Do the gun grabbing Liberals and “if there no guns there would be no violence” Utopians really believe that the kindergarteners and the first graderswould have been able to stop him from reloading?

MAYBE that might be true in a high school but would be less true in a junior high school.  So with all of his hectoring, Gregory was merely demagogueing a liberal fantasy as seen from a practical standpoint.

It has also come out, even as he he pompously sat in that chair across from LaPierre all but calling him crazy for the NRA’s call to secure schools with armed first responders (which 1/3 of all public schools do already), his kids go to a private school where there are, indeed, armed secruity people protecting HIS kids.

Hypocrit.  Fine for me, but you “unwashed masses”?  Screw you as my Progressive agenda (dearming the US) comes before the safety of your kids in school.

The real reason for the emphasis on the magazine capacity on the part of the pundits, IMHO, is to get that first concession – and just like with so many other issues, once that first step is taken, under the guise of “common sense” and in “a sense of compromise” (which pretty much often only goes one way), the next one comes up quickly.  And the next, and the next.  When do they do the reverse?

Actions speak louder than words:

Gun smake us less safe

After all, we are supposed to be equal – why does Obama or many OTHER politicians believe they need “gun protection” and yet , are starting the process to taking that away from the rest of us “little people” (a la NY Gov Cuomo and US Senator Diane FeinStein)?


Leave a Comment

  • Wizard

    Yeah. By the time Gregory was done, ol’ Wayne was frothing at the mouth. Psychologically, it appeared that Wayne was so caught up in his rant that he lost control of bodily functions. Kinda like someone shaking their head no when they are saying “yes, yes, yes” ..Carly Fiorina does that a lot. ..and Mitt Romney too.

    • wishful thinking….every issue a pathos and an opportunity, eh? When arguing need, one argues with fools….when “need” or “not need” becomes the debate on how many bullets a magazine can hold, its not long before the true-believing Liberal comes along and argues that because we have a police force and a Military, nobody needs guns.

      The solution is to leave the law abiding citizens who own guns…alone. The solution is to provide meaningful security in our schools. That should include some voluntary time on the part of all in the community…It does not need to be a cash cow like so many want to make it.

      Finally, I think you misread Wayne LaPierre’s passion in advocacy. With the flow of roughly 8,000 new NRA members signing up and the recent spike in donations to the NRA, that anecdotally tells me that citizens are worried about what power-drunk liberals are going to do in the next congress. There is a run on Black scary guns, hi-capacity magazines and ammunition right now….Dealers cant keep them on their shelves and most are in backorder. I don’t know what you glean from that, but I can tell you what I glean from it.

      • Wizard

        Hey, Rick come back from right-wing-paranoia-land for a minute back over to conservative-land. You can be conservative without having to follow along with everything Wayne and Grover say. It’s obvious what you’re getting at. You are implying that if everyone is signing up for the NRA and buying guns, it must be because Wayne’s position is morally superior. Thinking like that is how we got our butts kicked in the past two elections.

        As I understand it, schools can hire guards now if they want to. Why does the Federal government need to set up an NRA entitlement for this? What right do you have to take my money to do this?

        Secondly, Columbine and Va Tech proved that guards on site didn’t avert the tragedies. If you want to police the schools, you’ll be required to police the classrooms (where the folks get killed). Maybe more like 5 or 10 or 20 armed guards per school posted at all exits and also patrols. That also means 10 or 20 times what Wayne thinks its going to cost the American Tax Payer for your new entitlement.

        As for gun controls, I don’t know for sure that smaller capacity magazines and drums would help. Couldn’t we find out? Surely we could setup training simulations with law enforcement professionals trying to rush someone w/ 100 round drums vs 7 round clips. Find out which shooters’ weapon configuration is easier to over take. You know, verify your assumption. Is that too complicated, to want to know the truth?

        What if Adam Lanzas weapons had finger print locks that only worked for his mother? That seems like a more direct safeguard than Wayne griping about Call of Duty and GTA. I also think that military training and stringent civilian certifications to handle assault weapons and peripherals might be worth looking into. Similar to how we don’t let a teenager with a new drivers permit drive buses or a tractor-trailers. We could insist folks with big guns and 100 round drums are meeting a higher standard. That seems reasonable, doesn’t it?

        Before Congress created a new NRA entitlement for a small subset of people and the gun industry, I’d want to know for sure. Further, I’d actually ask America how they felt about new taxes before I let my passion talk for me and get in the way of common sense. Banning Video Games and Movies is not the answer. What Wayne and you are doing is trying to confuse people with your scapegoat. Get real man. Stop thinking that government hand out’s are the best solutions and please tell the NRA that too.

        • wow…you REALLY assume a great deal. and to be honest, you dont sound so conservative….You are doing the VERY thing liberals do: I’m talking about a government on the road to an all out ban on guns and somehow you have spiraled down to adding ideas and talking points that sound like I am chatting with Leftist hack Jim Splaine. Just what is up with that?

          • Wizard

            Wow back at you. You didn’t score very high in reading comprehension in all those classes did you? For the nth time.. NRA gets up there and demands a new Federal entitlement which you are all for, and then you have the notion to call me the Romneyite? Look in the mirror at yourself, you government hand-out moocher. You sir, Romney and people like you two should be poster boys for entitlement spending. Your sense of self pity that America owes you something makes real conservatives sick. Go join the Democrats you liberal Rino. Have you ever even read the Constitution or are you getting your info from right-wing-nuttery-land? Amendments start with the first, don’t you and Wayne dare try to claim guns are more important than speech. My “accusations” come directly from Wayne’s two press events on Friday and Sunday. Figure it out man or stop wasting our time with your nonsense.

          • Government hand-out moocher? Liberal RINO? Just want to make sure I get this right….You come “here” on Granite Grok….call names, become shrill basically spiral down like an ant-social asshole…and now your kicking me off this blog? really? Spoken like a true Ron Paul Supporter. Good luck with that

          • Wizard

            Well don’t insult me, equate me with Romneyite, insinuate I’m a liberal and all in your defense of the government giving you hand-out’s and you’ll be treated nicer.

  • Wizard

    Skip, to answer your question.. Its symbolic to figure out if you’re hard core ideologue that doesn’t believe in any perspective but your own. Or if you are actually looking for solutions. But a question back for you, if putting an armed security guard in every classroom required $50 Billion in new entitlement spending, would you be ok borrowing that money from China? What about parent paying for their own child’s security? Who funds this new NRA entitlement?

    • granitegrok

      First off, it would not be “entitlement” spending (and since none of the money would go to the NRA, how would that be an “entitlement”?) which is really money that goes to individual people in the form of welfare programs.

      Second, I totally dismiss your premise that it has to be NEW spending. True, it seems that any new program originating in DC (or expanding an existing one) always seems to be that which raises total funds expended by the Federal Government. To many of us TEA Party type folks, this is the epitome of the DC Beltway and Political Class thinking – and failure to want to be on record for making hard decisions. No, it should not be NEW spending, but a NEW PRIORITIZATION for existing funds. Too often, we see the mentality of “we have to do everything”, that EVERYTHING is exactly the same Number One Importance, that has ended up in quadruple $1 Trillion deficits and a $16 Trillion national debt. We cannot afford everything – stop acting like we can.

      IF “keeping kids safe” is a true number one priority (and I believe it should be), I think that the first people who should make the decision to expend the funds are the local communities (like Marlboro Township in NJ just did) whose kids are in their local schools. Then to the State level, and then to the Fed level (if you really want a hierarchy of levels). Regardless of which level, assuming that parents are taxpayers, they are paying for their kids security via their taxes at whatever level.

      Your inquiry, seemingly shaped as a taunt, DOES bring up the first root source of the funding problems we face. Our political leaders should always have a priority hierarchy either in place or at least in mind (instead, the Feds can’t even pass a budget). The result would be, in this case, would be to defund those at the bottom (what most of us might call “nice to have”) and fund this obviously high priority (what most of us would call “have to have”) instead.

      Sadly, our political leaders, on both sides of the aisle, refuse to step up and make these hard kinds of decisions all the time (valuing their jobs over doing). Instead, they are trying to fund them all, all at the same time, acting like National Santa Clauses plying and pandering with “gifts” back to us that we, the taxpayers, have paid for with our own money. If nothing else changes, our time to be Greece will arrive and then it may be that nothing gets funded.

      • Wizard

        My reply to this is being censored. I don’t know why, too much truthiness perhaps.

        • Wizard

          Wow. Thank you for your thoughtful response. The frothing thing was a bit of a taunt (wink), but only because of personal experience getting too caught up in my own rants and slobbering a bit. =)

          As a nearly two decade fan of Ron Paul, Libertarian ideals and more recently Tea Party Fiscal concerns, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Couple of places you lost me though and a want to be clear because I believe there are solutions not just endless chit-chatter. I also believe that one guard per school isn’t anywhere near enough. One per classroom is a better target (and no, if anything Chris Christie got that idea from me, not the other way around. He might have had come up with it first if he had bothered to lead but no one really expected that).

          #1 (censored site) entitlement (noun) definition 3 says “the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation.” In my mind, armed guards at every school is a benefit and if provided by the government because parents have a right to safe schools, it mostly satisfy the definition of entitlement.

          #2 Moving money around doesn’t mean it’s not redistribution of wealth. It isn’t yours in the first place. It doesn’t matter when you allocated it, you’re taking money from me and giving it to others. That’s why I suggest parents pay for it, your Tier 0 (zero) perhaps.

          #3 “NRA entitlement” as I stated was meant to denote the NRA pushing for a new entitlement (see #1). Plus, a lot of us believe “solutions” that greatly benefit the lobby (gun manufacturers and sellers) is inherently rigged, like a racket. When the group pushing for new government spending does so in a way that directly benefits their members, its immediately suspect for what it is.

          #4 I’m totally with you on the $1 Trillion dollar annual deficit and $16 to $60 Trillion in long term debt. Why can’t we reduce spending and not create a new entitlement?

          #5 Your strong belief in keeping kids safe is commendable. I won’t bother you with what 15+ years of war is doing to kids of all ages and geographies. However, I might have a different perspective on what keeps kids safe or what the real priorities are. I’m sure we can agree as Americans we have to work that out democratically.

          #6 “nice to have” vs. “have to have” and I’d like to add what can pass congress. These together plus taxation is why I think its a local issue. That way you and your folks can prioritize as can me and mine. Like you said, some communities already are. Go back and listen to Wayne’s arguments, he is clearly calling for an underfunded Federal entitlement that benefits the gun industry.

          #7 You’re obviously correct about both sides of the isle and especially on the extremes. You are incorrect about us becoming Greece, it will never happen. ..no if’s, and’s, or’s, but’s or otherwise. That line is a canard. What we’re going through right now is exactly what we need to be going through and hundreds of years from now they will teach it like it happened in a historical context. Have faith brother, things could be a whole lot worse.

          Thank you for taking the time for a detailed response. I appreciate your not devolving into quips and snarks as if to prove a point. I respect your points of view and agree with about half of your assertions. I’m also impressed with your willingness to put yourself out there and back it up. Kudos!

          As a software developer, I’ve got a stake in the information technology aspects of this issue. Wayne blasted video games and was recalcitrant everytime anyone brought up anything about gun control. He’s not even willing to find out if smaller magazines are safer for the public or if (my idea..) people buying assault weapons have to have military training or higher certifications (like a Class C driver for Buses). No, he wasn’t having it.

          My big gripe is that he suggested either taking violent content off the market or armed guards at every school was the answer, as if those were the two choices. A kid with a video game can’t kill a school full of people. A kid with a bunch of munitions who’s played video games certainly can. Although I concede less violent video games and raunchy movies would help people be less addicted to violence, evidence based reasoning suggests that if the rifle, glock or sig wasn’t in those boys hands a lot of people would still be alive. The solution isn’t to ban guns, but 100 round drums and 30 round clip owners, people with psychologically unstable kids could be held to a higher standard.

          • granitegrok

            #1 If the State is mandating Govt schools for kids (and for most practical instances, they do), it is not an entitlement nor a Right but a Responsibility that the State protects the young ones that parent entrust to them. By your own definition, SS and Unemployment, entitlements go to individual people directly – and this is not that case and therefore does not satisfy the definition of entitlement.

            #2 Redistribution is not just the taking but also the underlying intent and purpose for the taking. Taking more from others for additional purposes is still a taking but not necessarily redistribution. It IS redistribution if it goes as a type of welfare program (SS, medicare, medicaid, TANF, unemployment). Schools do not fit an effective definition of redistribution unless one is a hardcore LIbertarian. Which I am not; a self-described Conservative with libertarian leanings that does believe that Govt is needed but it should be limited and whatever it does, it should do extremely well (while I am FOR parental choice for schools, there may well be a place for govt schools and if so, there should be a reasonable expectation that govt schools would return the parents’ kids at the end of the day, hale and hearty).

            #3 See #1 above, and it would be an “NRA entitlement” only if the $$ goes to the NRA or its programs directly. Just because another solution has been offered does not mean it is an entitlement. After all, will govt schools immediately allow private individuals in, regardless of training? For instance, my son just came home from the 101st after 4 years – do you think that the local School Board would allow him to just stroll the halls?

            #4 I am with you on reduces spending – we just have to get folks there that will actually do what they pledged to (like Frank Guinta who pledged and failed).

            #6 I hear a lot from Liberals that they believe that the NRA is just a front group for gun manufacturers – I would disagree (I am not a member, btw – I joined, but when the First Amendment was under attack and they refused to protect another Right closely linked to the Second, I let my membership lapse).

            #7 I do believe that the stage is set to be Greece all over – with the exception that no one has the financial wherewithal to bail us out. I agree that it would be harder, as our cultural mindset is different than most Greeks – but I don’t think that Romney was far off the mark with his 47% remark (I saw the same attitude when TMEW & I owned a daycare with the “state supported” welfare moms).

            Re: video games. I do believe that for the mentally ill, they can be that “nudge over the edge” but fine for most adults. I do believe, however, that it can be viewed as just one more nudge to a continual coarsening of Society in which a true Civil Society becomes almost impossible to function. It is not, however, the only part.

            I agree with LaPierre, and have posted elsewhere on the ‘Grok, about the slippery slope that he is trying to keep the discussion away from. Already, Gov. Cuomo in NY and Senator Diane Feinstein (with 40 more, now) would be happy with a confiscation.

            I also believe that the term “assault” weapons is a media and Progressive “re-definition” of terms. I am surprised at this, along from the other arguments about “higher standards” from a Libertarian like you (heh!) – why should I have to bow down further to a Government in order to exercise my Second Amendment Right? I am a free and innocent Citizen – why should I be treated as if I was guilty and why do I need to be forced to ask for Permission?

          • Wizard


            You make great points. I almost feel guilty arguing with you about it. I’d be lying to say your idea of all this wasn’t more comforting. Clearly your opinions are thoughtful and nuanced and you’re looking for a better way. I totally respect that.

            One more try..

            Lets say hypothetically as Wayne LaPierre has demanded, that the Federal Government creates a new program, appropriates our tax dollars, hires 250,000 federal police and plants them in all the schools (public and private, college, Vo-Tech’s, all of them). I can’t imagine that wouldn’t be coordinated with the Dept of Education and HLD. Who benefits?

            ..Uncle Sam (more or re-appropriated taxes/bigger govt), Armed Security Personnel, Parents, Kids, Teachers, Administrators all in the guise of warding off a scary boogey man. The result is more government subsidies, more controls, more restrictions on citizens, less income in our pockets and no individual or community say-so in what gets done.

            You have a better way of describing it maybe, but I think my interpretation is a more accurate summation. I certainly don’t want to insult you, but Establishment Republicans love to find great reasons for big government programs when it benefits them or their lobby. Conservative Republicans or Libertarians (heh!) try to avoid new government programs if possible. I think that may be were we diverge. I’m looking for a way to not have a new entitlement established (I know you don’t like that word, but its what it is, a new guaranteed right to benefits provided by the government).

            To your points..

            ** Redistribution is not just the taking but also the underlying intent and purpose for the taking. Taking more from others for additional purposes is still a taking but not necessarily redistribution. **

            So its ok if its for a good reason? I’m sorry to have to go all English on you. This is from a dictionary site that won’t be named..

            Redistribution (n) Def 2. – Economics. the theory, policy, or practice of lessening or reducing inequalities in income through such measures as progressive income taxation and antipoverty programs.

            So like if I had no children and you took my money for a new program to protect your children, that’s not reducing inequalities? Why can’t they pay for their own kids? Why do I have to be involved? You don’t think that’s moving wealth from one group of people over to another group? If “taking our taxes” and “not taking our taxes” were the same thing we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

            Take insurance for example (related to property rights). My insurance premiums are higher than they would be due to folks who live right on the coast. Their insurance premiums are less than they should be living in high risk areas. The government sets up rules that takes money from people in safe areas in order to subsidize people in risky areas because they mandate insurance companies cover everyone in the area who wants it. This is redistribution of wealth, pure and simple.

            Lets say I home schooled my kids (in a safe environment w/o armed guards) or didn’t have any kids, would I still be required to fund safe schools in high risk areas for other people’s kids?

            I recognize the interpretation as a cold one, I don’t want to see anyone’s kids get killed or adults either for that matter. But creating a big new government program as Wayne LaPierre demands is not the answer and neither is banning Video Games (although I’d certainly be comfortable keeping violent ones out of the hands of minors under 21).

            ** See #1 above, and it would be an “NRA entitlement” only if the $$ goes to the NRA or its programs directly. **

            Like SHIELD? Look.. Guards need guns, training, vests purchased from that industry, paychecks to pay their dues to the NRA. Just because Obama isn’t cutting a check to the NRA directly, doesn’t mean it’s not an NRA entitlement in the sense you are implying (I originally meant the NRA was pushing a new entitlement). But “NRA Entitlement” is apt too. NRA members would greatly benefit as do parents from a government program we all pay for. By definition, that’s an entitlement. ..like Food Stamps in a way, it keeps at risk people alive.

            I recognize that you don’t see it that way but it doesn’t change the fact it fits the definition. You are trying to say if NRA members benefit and parents benefit from a NRA backed government program its somehow not an NRA entitlement. That may be semantics between us. I think I’ve given more than enough examples of how it fulfills the definition.

            ** we just have to get folks there that will actually do what they pledged to **

            Lord, don’t even get me started on the ineptitude of congress.

            ** I hear a lot from Liberals that they believe that the NRA is just a front group for gun manufacturers **

            I’m not a liberal if that’s what you were implying like others on this page, but I take your point. Do you also think the Iraq War was NOT a front for the Military Industrial Complex? (You don’t have to guess my interpretation, it is)

            Wayne LaPierre said the NRA represented 4 million “people”. But you are also aware that many gun industry players and politicians are members as well. Grover Norquist is on the Board of Directors for Heaven’s sake. Please don’t act like the NRA is agnostic towards their member issues. You know full good and well, like the Chamber of Commerce that the NRA is all about protecting and if possible enhancing business for its business members every bit as much as protecting their right to own guns. Its good for the NRA in that keeps the dues flowing in. It maybe a grey racket, versus say money laundering but its still a racket.

            In the same breath, I will admit that the NRA does indeed protect its members’ gun rights. When it steps out of that role and dismisses logic as a left wing threat is where you lose me. I don’t consider myself to be left wing and if you and your other readers do, then in my mind that makes you all far right wing seeking more entitlements for yourselves. But then I wouldn’t want to disparage a whole group of people.

            ** viewed as just one more nudge to a continual coarsening of Society **

            Yes, that nudge is no doubt detrimental for those at risk already. However, 99.9% of us aren’t at risk. The Federal Government has none or little authority to become the thought police. I would suggest for you to advocate for parental limitations on kids activities. Its not the role of the federal government to raise kids. ..although, of course harmful materials should be regulated some what (as I’ve stated before).

            ** I also believe that the term “assault” weapons is a media and Progressive “re-definition” of terms. **

            What’s amusing about that is your ability to paint with English like an impressionist all the while refusing to agree to basic definitions. Once again, here’s what assault means..

            assault (n)

            1. a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.

            2. (Law.) an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.

            3. (Military.) the stage of close combat in an attack.

            ..that’s straight out of the dictionary man. Here’s another one..

            assault weapon (n) – any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use.

            ..I also think 100 round drums probably qualify. If we can’t agree on basic English, that’s an even bigger problem than the assault weapons, which in my mind means “a weapon used for assaulting humans”.

            Is there any other legitimate purpose for a Bushmaster other than target practice maybe? Even in the “home security” context (which I happen to think is very appropriate), those guns have no other purpose but for killing people. I’m not suggesting you ban them at all. I think most Americans who want them can handle them. I’m suggesting we find a way to make them harder for psycho’s like Loughner and Lanza get them. Especially do that before creating a new federal entitlement, or loving-government-helping-hand-security-program or whatever you like to call it that makes it feel warm and fuzzy.

            ** I am surprised at this, along from the other arguments about “higher standards” from a Libertarian like you (heh!) **

            That my friend is finally the crux of the matter. Were you also surprised at Romeny’s stellar loss to Obama? Did you know that he’s 1 of only 5 people to win the popular vote during his second term? ..and this against our guy who was supposed to win in a landslide?

            (bare with me)

            What you aren’t understanding is the sensibility part. There are always crazies on all sides. Many of us appreciate limited government if it stays out of our houses, our wallets and our lives to a large degree. That doesn’t mean we want teenagers driving Mac Trucks on Driver’s Permits. That is not sensible. Allowing my neighbor to pollute or dump on my property, their property where it leeches over or public property (like BP did in the gulf) is not sensible. Allowing psycho’s running around pretending they are military shooting up kids and bystanders with military style weapons is not sensible. The problem isn’t armed guards in schools, the problem is the psycho with the gun; any kind of gun.

            I’m not of the mind that no government (anarchy) is better. I’m of the mind that limited government is the best form. Surely that makes sense.

            ** why should I have to bow down further to a Government in order to exercise my Second Amendment Right? **

            You shouldn’t. It should be the other way around, government works for us not against us (or at least that’s how it should be). But you also shouldn’t have a complete disregard for the affects that exercising your rights have on others, like your right to safe schools for instance. We are indeed a community. Just because you want to go buy something, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be held to a higher standard to get it. ..Gun Power, Acids, Poisons, Heavy Equipment, all sorts of things are regulated for good reason.

            Consider a couple hundred years ago when America was being founded. Could some stranger walk up in your encampment and pick two muskets out of the pile and start using them? Wouldn’t you have to know a little about them, teach them, find out what kind of person they are? Why would anyone willingly give a mass murderer an AR-15 or a Glock or even a little revolver? Who makes that decision? The gun store owners and employees. We’ve taken the getting to know someone part out of the equation and turned it into Assault-Weapons-R-Us. I don’t think its too much to ask for some background information to evaluate and certifications to pass for high capacity rounds and assault weapons. That seems perfectly logical to me like a Class C Drivers license.

            ** I am a free and innocent Citizen – why should I be treated as if I was guilty and why do I need to be forced to ask for Permission? **

            There are limits to all our freedoms. That’s just how it is.


            I kind of see where you are coming from and I certainly agree the need is there to try and be solved. I don’t think I’ll ever come around to the idea of a new Federal Police State entitlement program cooked up by the NRA in all our schools. You’d get a lot more support and sympathy by encouraging this on the local level.

            Thank you for the epic discussion. Good luck in the future and Happy New Year!! =D

        • granitegrok

          No, not censored….just me getting some sleep and not getting to the keyboard in time. Disqus put your comment into the “needs manual moderation” status and given that this is Christmas, I was otherwise occupied this morning. I have now approved the comments.

          I ALSO want to continue the conversation! This is one reason why I blog – but my answer will be later on today or this evening as I have guests coming for whom I need to cook for.

          Merry Christmas!

  • mer

    How about we use DHS personnel? Wouldn’t protecting the children fall under “homeland security”? Even better, set up a single entry/exit point and set up a TSA checkpoint; they’ve been wickedly effective in confiscating all kinds of illegal nailclippers from travelers.
    It also sounds like the Sidwell Friends school has had the armed security there for quite a while, just adding to the inanity of the washington elites stance.

    Oh, the key point in the final paragraph is not made often enough: “his/their life is worth more than mine? Says who? Why?”

    Smaller capacity magazines: has one never heard of reloading? Watch any IPSC or IDPA competition to see how fast an expert can actually reload. It means there is a pause between 2 shots: what is someone from 15 feet away going to do? Toss a book at the shooter? Oh, but maybe if they were armed, they can draw and cause a permanent pause.

    Perhaps the influx of NRA signups is an indication that individuals thought for themselves?

    • Wizard

      lol right on! The only real solution is to arm the kids. Most have more time in simulations shooting people than any of the teachers. With respect to rounds per clip or drum, are any of these psycho’s experts? ..and is the two second pause or more (in an intense situation) opportunities for mistakes and overtake? Loughner was overtaken during a reload event.

  • granitegrok

    No Todd, not censored.

    Just getting to me keyboard. There are time that Disqus moderates
    comments and I have to approve them manually – this was one of
    them. And seeing that it came in after I went to bed, it may have
    appeared to have been censored.

    Just me, trying to live the wee bit of a private life outside of the
    ‘Grok that I have! Sorry for the delay!


    • Wizard

      lol yep. Finally figured out what the filter was, that domain name in the text threw me. Merriam-Webster would be fine too. Sorry about the reposts and looking forward to your retort. About to spend the evening doing some of that as well. Merry Christmas =)

  • Wizard

    Ron Paul vividly denounces NRA schools plan

    ..figured he’d respond with something like this eventually. I just don’t like new government hand out programs, or gifts as Romney calls them. If you want to arm and secure your schools, do it. You don’t need congress to create a new federal NRA entitlement with my tax dollars.

    • granitegrok

      There was more here (but no source links either at Fox or Politico): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/ron-paul-rips-nra-plan-for-officers-in-every-school/?test=latestnews

      From the Fox link: He continued: “I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should
      view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the
      solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit
      ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society
      based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful
      cooperation through markets.”

      He is right, and what I would call a “change of hearts” is what is needed. Progressives want a “perfect Utopia” but to get there, will require a totalitarian regime and a totalitarian version of Though Police (“you must think only approved thoughts”) – and use the wrong approach to gain it (external laws to force an internal change – an impossibility). However, I see a simplistic offering here – we DO need a Civil Society (defined as that space being between Government and Individuals, which Progressives are hellbent on destroying). Progressives are also hellbent on destroying with public policy traditions and mores that have served Society well for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

      But from what has printed in either article is the glaring whole of what to do with bad actors who do not want “peaceful cooperation” but are Evil instead (like that guy this morning that shot the Firemen and burned the homes simply because “killing is what I do best”.).

      Conservatives at least recognize that more and more laws (20,000 gun control laws from what I am reading) won’t change someone’s heart – and wish to at least mitigate the actions of a fallen, flawed person as quickly as possible. I do believe that one fallout may well be more home schooling being tried.

      Wizard, I agree – the Feds do not have to be activated to accomplish at least the nominal goal of a quick response. After all, one of the major responsibilities of a State is to keep its Citizens safe (but! not at the expense of being a total Police State).

      • Wizard

        Yeah, its grey. If someone had established a perfect utopia, it would be on Amazon or Priceline. What’s supposed to happen is people get to know people in their own communities and protect each other. We’ve turned all that over to local, state and fed as if to say “protect me” while also not giving a damn about our neighbors. Its a false sense of security at least and ultimately our downfall at most.

    • Ron Paul denounces most everything…why is that so surprising to us?

  • Wizard

    Skip has got some great insight and believes in protecting our kids. He is speaking out about America’s purpose and how we can make a better society and a better world. Long live our Patriots!

  • Pingback: Granite Grok’s Top Twenty Posts For 2012 « Live Free or Die()

Previous post:

Next post: