- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,789
- Reaction score
- 35,546
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
If they are serious, you bet. I took his point as a "this is how you sound, please stop" example, and notably, a lot of people were PO'd, but the thing is, those same people dismissed it when it came from their side of the aisle. Using crises for political game is wrong, and it is in fact an Alinsky tactic.
It's not an excuse, I know exactly what he did and he got the response he was looking for.Dismissed it when it came from their side of the aisle?
Like you just did with Kal, coming up with excuses and justifications for why your double standard is okay? How was your argument any different than what you're claiming here.
I've criticized those who IMMEDIETELY spring into "MORE GUN LAWS" in the immediete wake of these tragedies, and I criticize those who IMMEDIETELY spring into push against gun laws in relation to them as well. Both sides hate to let a good crisis go to waste because they realize the tender political meat that presents itself. As demonstrated...god forbid we even let an hour or two go by, information to come out, emotions to settle before we immedietely launch into our political wars. That'd just be unfathomable to those who are feverishly and pathetically dedicated to their no-holds-barred, at all costs, partisan battles.
To what I bolded, THAT was his point, that it is callous and idiotic when the anti-gun guys do exactly that. I have family members who argue exclusively like that, using parody of a position to hopefully show the other person how stupid their argument was during playback.No one missed his point. His point was idiotic, done poorly, and had a clear agenda to it OTHER condemning people "dancing on graves".
Kal jumped at the chance to use injured children to make a political point. The only reason you don't see it as "dancing on graves" is because you agree with his political point as opposed to others.
The left is hardly the only side that "jumps right out" and and makes statements that goes straight to political talking points as well. In this very thread, for instance, you had MULTIPLE people immedietely jumping to political talking points.
You seemingly consider it "dancing on the graves" simply because they push a political point you disagree with, as I've not seen you previously...or here...demonstrate any concern or care about people making political points you DO agree with immedietely upon these incidents.
So what? Your side gets to rape the memory of children in tragedy, but shame on the liberals who do it, because they're politics is bad and your politics is good?
How is this ANY different than a liberal coming in and going after a shooting and going "Clearly we need less gun regulation and assault rifles shouldn't be banned. :roll:". Would you accuse them of pushing a political agenda and suggesting that we need more regulation? Or would you just chalk it up as a "mimic technique" where they are pointing out what it looks like when someone jumps right out and makes a statement of that nature.
Kal did use a mimic technique....to capitalize on the injuring of school children IMMEDIETELY following a tragic event to push a political agenda.
But hey, it was pro-gun....so apparently that river dance is a-okay.
I know exactly what he did .
Dismissed it when it came from their side of the aisle?
Like you just did with Kal, coming up with excuses and justifications for why your double standard is okay? How was your argument any different than what you're claiming here.
I've criticized those who IMMEDIETELY spring into "MORE GUN LAWS" in the immediete wake of these tragedies, and I criticize those who IMMEDIETELY spring into push against gun laws in relation to them as well. Both sides hate to let a good crisis go to waste because they realize the tender political meat that presents itself. As demonstrated...god forbid we even let an hour or two go by, information to come out, emotions to settle before we immedietely launch into our political wars. That'd just be unfathomable to those who are feverishly and pathetically dedicated to their no-holds-barred, at all costs, partisan battles.
and all the while,what we SHOULD be talking about is the state of mental health in this country, and what steps we should be taking to addresses it.
I think there's a LOT of things that are worthy of discussion after a lot of these things....
Mental Health is absolutely one of them. General parenting is another. The sensationalism and "villian" worship of sorts that occurs with these things is another. Yes, gun / weapon regulations are part of that as well. So is discussions regarding our culture. I have the whole "video games help cause this" type of arguments, but I still see and understand merit in the notion of discussions regarding violence in our culture even if I don't agree with those necessarily saying it's definitely a problem or needs to change.
There are a whole hosts of legitimate avenues to discuss.
But NONE of them are ever going to get worked out in the first hour after something like this happens, and none of them are going to actually cause any realistic, useful, honest, worth while debate or discussion to happen in that first hour either. If anything, the constant need to push a political agenda (and spare me LMR if you somehow are deluding yourself into thinking that part of his "mimicry" wasn't pushing a political agenda that weapon regulation doesn't work) IMMEDIETELY in the wake of these things just harms the chance for anything meaningful to ever be discussed or come out of them.
Okay, so heaven forbid there is another school shooting and someone does that in a serious manner I expect to see you and everyone else criticizing Kal to condemn them.I do,too.
He acted like the immature 12 year old has been caught with the spray paint in his hand whining like a baby trying to justify his graffiti vandalism by claiming others do it,too.
The first thing you thought when you saw this thread, 5 minutes after it was posted, was not to express concern for those involved, but rather to mock those of a different political viewpoint. Your priorities were gun first, people second. And then, almost without fail, every post after has been about guns.
You missed the "gun nuts" and "zealots" identifications, but otherwise you did a good job.
We need to get all these knives off the streets. Knife control now!!
Come to think of it, it wouldn't hurt getting the spoons and forks off the streets too. :mrgreen:
Good Lord Judgy McJudgement...get over it. My priorities are about ME. And since my kids werent in my school, I said a quick prayer and then examined it immediately in the context of previous events and previous assaults on my gun rights. I didnt feel the need to post my concern on a DISCUSSION forum....I posted something to DISCUSS.
If you have a different style of posting, or dont like someone else's style...maybe you should start your own forum where you can judge all those.
But, for the LOVE OF GOD, let it go.
*takes off Drama Queen hat*
None of the "We Need Guns in Schools!!11!!" advocates seem to have answered to the fact that there were armed guards in this school - and we still had people stabbed. So, did armed guards make a difference or didn't they?
Good lord judgy mcjudgement Jr you are now doing the same thing.
Mocking liberals who want to stop children from getting shot.
None of the "We Need Guns in Schools!!11!!" advocates seem to have answered to the fact that there were armed guards in this school - and we still had people stabbed. So, did armed guards make a difference or didn't they?
I believe that only 1 of give 3 were armed, from what I have heard.
The key is the size of the school/campus - cops can't be everywhere at the same time.
It does suggest that having multiple administrators/teachers/employees armed makes a lot of sense.
Schools don't need more guns in them. They need less violence. I am not anti gun, I own guns, I think most households should have guns. But a school is no place for them. Guns have been around for a long time. These school shootings/attacks are becoming more and more common. As a society we should be working toward why these things are happening not how can we get more guns in more places. An armed guard may stop a shooter, it may hit other kids in a crossfire. But it won't change that gunfire happened at that school.
I believe that only 1 of give 3 were armed, from what I have heard.
The key is the size of the school/campus - cops can't be everywhere at the same time.
It does suggest that having multiple administrators/teachers/employees armed makes a lot of sense.
I don't really understand this sentiment. They're not cops, and what makes a person a good police officer are not (generally) going to be what makes a fine teacher. Screening reliable teachers able to safely use a firearm in a panic situation difficult. Training them properly would be expensive and ongoing. They'd have to carry their weapons at all times in order to predictably affect an event like this, which means teachers in a classroom, of kids from 6 to 17 or 18, looking over homework, packing a Glock on their hip. Like guns or not, the presence of an unconcealed weapon in a room changes the dynamic entirely. There is the problem of 500,000 or a million teachers in the 130,000 schools securing the weapons and making sure that students cannot get access to them.
One does not need to be a cop to carry a gun and use it correctly.
Weapons in schools should be carried concealed - out of sight, out of mind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?