published Thursday, January 10th, 2013

A dismal opening scene

The convening this week of a new Tennessee Legislature has, unfortunately, already turned into a dismal prospect. Tennessee's Republican rulers, heady with the novelty of super-majorities in both chambers and no need to consider opposing voices, appear ready to flex their muscle by shoveling retrograde education policies down our school systems' throats.

Three of their legislative proposals illustrate their delusional vision of how to cure the state's educational shortcomings on the cheap. Some, for example, want to impose charter schools, a proven failure at solving school problems. Others are lining up to dictate untenable ways to kill off "failing schools" instead of providing additional resources to help their under-prepared and under-achieving students.

And, worse, in the wake of the horrific Sandy Hook massacre, some lawmakers promise legislation based on the insane idea of arming teachers, whether they like it or not, as a means of protecting students from maniacal mass-murderers armed with rapid-fire assault weapons and large-volume bullet magazines.

It's no coincidence that virtually all of the states' so-called "failing schools" are in impoverished urban neighborhoods and filled with students, often from broken families, who largely rely on free or reduced-price meals for nutrition. In these schools, poverty and socio-economic conditions beg more teachers, smaller classrooms, highly focused reading and math mentoring, before- and after-school enrichment programs, and additional resources to match those that come easily from strong, affluent PTA's in more prosperous neighborhoods.

Downsizing or closing these schools -- or siphoning off better students and state and local funding to private or charter schools -- would be irrationally destructive to students left behind. So would a parental vote to "close" a school's doors -- as would be allowed under another proposal -- rather than doubling down on its core mission with broader resources.

The proposal to arm teachers, an echo of the national chatter, is even more troubling. If Sandy Hook's teachers had been armed, the gun disciples and their kneeling lawmakers claim, they could have, might have, dueled with the killer's semi-automatic Bushmaster before he managed to kill more kids, and six of their educators.

That stunning presumption boggles the mind. Most teachers, like other ordinary people, know they're more fit to shepherd their students to the safest closet than they are to engage a rampaging killer in a panicky, adrenalin-fogged crunch of shoot-out justice. Most teachers, and their association's leaders, recognize that more sensible gun laws and more effective mental-health management are the keys to making society safer. Schools are but one of the public spaces -- shopping malls, theaters and places of worship are others -- where crazed killers have recently massacred people.

None of these insensible ideas are original or unique to Tennessee. The emboldened gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association and embraced by Republicans who myopically cling to their niche constituencies, ginned up the arm-the-teachers mantra across the country on its Internet cookery of Crock-Pot ideas within hours after the massacre of 20 small children and six teachers in the Newtown, Conn., school.

More broadly, the NRA has been pushing the expansion of gun-carry laws -- in schools, bars, parks, churches and most every public place -- for years. Its agenda is among similarly destructive policies for public schools -- "government schools" in their advocates' disdainful lexicon -- and for taxpayer giveaways to businesses. All these have emerged nationally through the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC, over the past decade.

They are simply part and parcel of the anti-government timber amassed by ALEC as "model legislation" -- and promoted by billionaire neocon and libertarian sponsors like the Koch brothers and Wal-Mart -- to be shared among Republicans in most state Legislatures.

Tennessee's Legislature needs to rise above the dogma of the NRA and ALEC. The state needs more rational and practical strategies to improve education, and to attract the forward looking businesses that will secure our economic future and quality of life. Legislating backward educational policies will only diminish our opportunities.

37
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
mountainlaurel said...

Excellent commentary TFP. . . The level of stupidity being demonstrated by Tennessee’s Republican representatives since the Sandy Hook tragedy leaves one absolutely speechless.

If the priority of the State of Tennessee’s representatives is allow everyone to carry weapons, then I believe it becomes incumbent upon the State of Tennessee to install body scanners and assign State Troopers for security detail at the doors of all schools – just like they do at the State Capitol. It’s also incumbent for the State to pick-up the tab for all of the costs involved.

This grand scheme of arming and assigning teachers to “security detail” as a means to protect students and school personnel from all of the criminals and armed mentally unstable persons the State of Tennessee has accommodated is dim witted and dangerous. It not only shows how hair-brained Tennessee's representatives really are, but how little these representatives actually care about public safety and the lives of our children and teachers.

January 10, 2013 at 9:04 a.m.
conservative said...

ML, you seem to be infected with the hysteria of the writer of this piece. Your emotional chaos has rendered you irrational.

Your "If the priority of the State of Tennessee’s representatives is allow everyone to carry weapons" is evidence of that. You seem to acknowledge this by your "everyone" in bold letters. There is not a chance that Tennessee Republicans want to "allow everyone" to carry weapons (I assume you mean guns since just about everyone already carries a weapon of some sort).

You may have believed these hysterical words of the writer - "some lawmakers promise legislation based on the insane idea of arming teachers, whether they like it or not, as a means of protecting students from maniacal mass-murderers armed with rapid-fire assault weapons and large-volume bullet magazines."

There is not a chance that a teacher will be forced to be armed, you have been fooled. However, he actually stumbled into a truth when he correctly wrote "maniacal mass-murderers" becuase murder begins with the thoughts and intents of the person and the weapon is just the means to carry out his intent. Liberals either don't understand or refuse to try to understand this when they try to blame guns.

Notice also his words "rapid-fire assault weapons and large-volume bullet magazines." A 22 rifle or even a 22 pistol are common in most homes in America and are "rapid-fire assault weapons" because they fire just as fast as one can pull the trigger. "Large-volume bullet magazines" can easily be substituted by "maniacal mass-murderers" with several smaller volume magazines or they could stack the smaller capacity magazines to accomplish the same thing.

"Rapid-fire assault weapons and large-volume bullet magazines" are just flamboyant words to bamboozle and exploit the ignorant.

January 10, 2013 at 11:45 a.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"There is not a chance that Tennessee Republicans want to "allow everyone" to carry weapons (I assume you mean guns since just about everyone already carries a weapon of some sort)."

That statement undermines the 2nd Amendment.

"There is not a chance that a teacher will be forced to be armed, you have been fooled."

That is a straw man argument. No one mentioned teachers being "forced" to do anything.

"Liberals either don't understand or refuse to try to understand this when they try to blame guns."

People pull gun triggers. Those guns shoot bullets. Bullets fly through the air and kill people. Guns are part of the problem.

""Large-volume bullet magazines" can easily be substituted by "maniacal mass-murderers" with several smaller volume magazines or they could stack the smaller capacity magazines to accomplish the same thing."

Larger magazines don't have to be changed as often. Changing magazines takes time. Time for police officers or anyone to return fire or take the assailant down.

""Rapid-fire assault weapons and large-volume bullet magazines" are just flamboyant words to bamboozle and exploit the ignorant."

Those words mean something. Those words are accurate descriptions of assault weapons. There is no argument to the contrary. You even explain how those words are accurate. Your whole argument is an attempt to "bamboozle and exploit the ignorant". You misrepresent the situation with age old arguments that every WingNut has used since the gun control debate started. Those arguments never address guns. You take guns out of the picture and scapegoat everything else and use slippery slope arguments galore.

You and you ilk never address the gun issue. You never will. You're too far to irrational and afraid to actually discuss the issue at hand. The only emotional response comes from your side anytime anyone brings up gun control. You deflect and scapegoat everything else.

January 10, 2013 at 3:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said:"You seem to be infected with the hysteria of the writer of this piece. Your emotional chaos has rendered you irrational. . . Your "If the priority of the State of Tennessee’s representatives is allow everyone to carry weapons" is evidence of that. . . There is not a chance that Tennessee Republicans want to "allow everyone" to carry weapons."

Well, Conservative, it certainly sounds this way to me. Perhaps, you're not listening:

State: Rep. Eric Watson has a proposal for a bill that would allow faculty to be armed; State Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver has a proposal that would allow teachers with carry permits to bring guns to school; State Sen. Frank Niceley has drafted a bill requiring districts to assign at least one armed officer to every school or to allow teachers to go armed; and State Sen. Stacey Campfield has said he plans to propose three options for schools. 1. Have trained student resource officers on campus; 2. Train faculty with carry permits, and 3. Require the school system to assume liability of its students.

“NASHVILLE -- Legislation that would make it easier for gun owners to carry their weapons appears to be on track in Tennessee even after last week's school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

Backers of "guns-in-trunks" bills that would require employers to allow firearms in their parking lots say they plan to move ahead with the measures, even after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday.

The shooting could even lead to bills that would let teachers, professors and administrators carry handguns into schools and universities, they said.

Supporters of gun control have called for tighter restrictions on ownership in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, with President Obama hinting that he might back such an effort. But in Tennessee, gun rights advocates say they have no plans to change course.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/tennessee-guns-in-trunks-law-moves-forward/1777081/

January 10, 2013 at 7:21 p.m.
conservative said...

ML, you supplied your own contradiction. You made this blanket assertion "If the priority of the State of Tennessee’s representatives is allow everyone to carry weapons," but now you both clarify and limit who you mean concerning "everyone."

You originally wrote "everyone." Convicted felons are not permitted to carry, the underage are not permitted to carry, the mentally incompetent are not permitted to carry to name some exceptions. No Tennessee lawmaker is seeking to change that to include "everyone." Also you now bring up "one armed officer to every school" which is well, not "everyone" as you wrote. You also now cite that this person must be "trained", which precludes "everyone."

The guns in cars is virtually meaningless except to Liberals simply because those who have carry permits already have guns in cars at work, they just don't advertise it. There is no way to enforce that. Furthermore, a law is not going to stop a criminal from breaking the law. The kid who shot a student today in California is proof of that. Also no jury would convict anyone of breaking such a law if he/she were to save lives with a gun they had illegally in a parked car at work.

Portraying Tennessee lawmakers as seeking or wanting to allow "everyone" to carry weapons is hysteria!

January 10, 2013 at 8:46 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Armed guards isn't exactly a new idea. They're all over the place. Many of them in schools attended by the children of our elite ruling class and their media toadies.

January 10, 2013 at 10:20 p.m.
conservative said...

Sailorman:

You are right, Cops are in schools all over America, I have personally seen this in Florida.

Furthermore:

"SHHHHH! Please don’t tell the liberals that Clinton supported a program very similar to the one presented by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre today…It might cause their heads to explode…or even worse It might make them to think instead of poulticing."

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/12/in-2000-bill-clinton-wanted-cops-in-schools-because-of-columbine-2546306.html

Furtheremore:

"Progressives and the Liberal Media are bashing the NRA and it’s CEO Wayne LaPierre for the suggestion made in his speech today that trained armed guards be placed in every school in the country. Many critics point to the fact that Columbine High School had an armed guard during it’s horrible tragedy (but the guard was having a cigarette at the time)."

"Perhaps these critics should have done a touch of research before they spoke, In April 2000 as part of his commemoration of the first anniversary of deaths at Columbine High School in his weekly radio speech President Clinton announced $120 million in grants, much of it for a program to place armed police officers in schools."

"As the Associated Press reported at the time:"

"Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities."

'“Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said."

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/12/in-2000-bill-clinton-wanted-cops-in-schools-because-of-columbine-2546306.html

LIBERALS ARE ALWAYS SEEKING TO BAMBOOZLE THE FRAIL OF MIND.

January 11, 2013 at 8:08 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative complains: “You made this blanket assertion "If the priority of the State of Tennessee’s representatives is allow everyone to carry weapons," but now you both clarify and limit who you mean concerning "everyone."

No, you’re still missing my point, but this is probably my fault. I misread your first post to me and did not initially understand what was troubling you so much about my post. I should have read your complaint about my thoughts on this issue more carefully.

My initial emphasis of the word “everyone” was actually a poor attempt at sarcasm, which reflects my general dismay about the crazed attitude that many Tennessee lawmakers seem to have in regard to guns - guns in schools, guns for teachers, guns in employee parking lots etc. None of which I believe will make either our schools or our communities a safer place. And if these issues are not enough to put any reasonable person a bit on edge, there is this unsettling fact that the State of Tennessee continues to be one of those states that does not restrict the private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner, which is essentiallly an open invitation for anyone and everyone to come to one of these shows and buy a gun, including any convicted felon and/or mentally unstable person who wishes to purchase a gun.

It may be as you say that Tennessee’s lawmakers do not intend to change the law to allow “everyone” to carry a gun, but their inaction in regard to these private gun sales strongly suggests they are set on giving “everyone” the opportunity to purchase a gun.

January 11, 2013 at 9:27 a.m.
conservative said...

ML, Very good, and thanks for being so civil.

Several points though.

Law abiding citizens have a Constitutional right to own a gun. That right has been upheld by the Supreme Court. You and this writer are wasting your time.

Guns are everywhere, especially in Tennessee. They all have the potential to kill.

Those who want to kill will most often be successful whether it is with guns, knives, clubs, tire irons, bats, fists, poisons, cars etc.

Police officers with guns are already in many schools throuhgout our nation. It is only going to become more prevalent. Trained teachers could reduce this cost to the taxpayer.

Bill Clinton as I have already cited at 8:08, proposed this when he was in office. You can type in Clinton, Cops in Schools and see it on Youtube.

You are not the first to complain about gun shows (surprised?) but have you considered that individuals can advertise in newspapers, magazines, internet, visit flea markets, etc. Regulating gun shows will accomplish nothing. Furthermore, everyone knows someone who owns a gun, even yourself, so all one has to do is ask or let it be known that one desires to buy a gun. I have bought a few that way myself.

Now, if a person would not be permitted leagally to have a gun in their car at work, it would greatly undermine a carry permit (the gun opponents goal) because a working person would have to leave his gun at home. Guns in cars are the reality now and will continue to be the reality no matter what the law.

Your time allocated for complaining would be more useful on some other topic.

January 11, 2013 at 11:58 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “Law abiding citizens have a Constitutional right to own a gun. That right has been upheld by the Supreme Court. You and this writer are wasting your time.”

But the issues that I’m addressing and the issues that I believe the TFP writer is addressing are not about the rights of law-abiding citizens to own a gun. It’s about registering guns, regulating private gun sales, and reducing the ways that criminals and mentality unstable persons are obtaining guns; It’s about the inappropriate responses and ineffective solutions being proposed by Tennessee’s lawmakers in regard to public safety; It’s about establishing more effective ways to help assure public safety in our schools and communities.

Conservative said: Trained teachers could reduce this cost to the taxpayer.”

As secutiry plans go, our lawmakers’ proposals to assign teachers to "security detail" seems incredibly dimwitted to me. Clearly, any plan of action needs to begin by focusing on the entryways into the school building not the classroom door. It also seems to me that whoever is assigned to protect a school would need to be solely focused on this, and I don’t see how any teacher could do this effectively since their primary focus is their students. While I do think teachers would benefit from some defense training, I think it’s irresponsible for lawmakers to be considering such obviously crazy proposals. Indeed, if TN lawmakers want to save money why don’t they vounteer themselves to handle "security detail" at the State Capitol?

Conservative said: Now, if a person would not be permitted leagally to have a gun in their car at work, it would greatly undermine a carry permit. . ."

What about the rights of the property owner? Don't they have also rights, Conservative?

January 11, 2013 at 7:10 p.m.
conservative said...

But none of your ideas have or will stop in the future those criminals and mentally unstable from obtaining guns.

Liberals keep letting criminals loose from prison and worse many Liberals advocate no prisons at all.

Liberals are the reason many unstable are on the streets now and not in institutions. If Liberals won't institutionalize the known mentally unstable now, how can they determine who will shoot or kill someone with a gun in the future.? Many people are not judged mentally unstable untill after they kill someone.

Many only become a criminal after they commit a crime. How would you identify a criminal before he commits a crime?

Teachers trained to use guns may seem dimwitted to you but there will surely be many who don't think it is dimwitted and will volunteer for the job. No one will be forced to carry a gun who doesn't want the job. Furthermore, guns are in schools now all around the country and will surely be in the future whether it is by trained teachers, officials or police. You seem oblivious to this fact. You also seem oblivious to the fact that criminals and the mentally unstable will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun.

Yes, property owners have rights, but how are you going to enforce employees from having a gun on their person or in their vehicle. Liberals go balistic over searches now. Don't you know that Liberals have been opposed to searches at airports in the past?

I don't believe you are sincere about property rights. I would bet you a coke that you would not grant me the right to control who comes on my business property, how that person was dressed on my business property, the curtailment of profanity on my business property, the choice of music on my business property, who I could do business with on my business property to name some of the restrictions I would like to have.

You are beating a dead horse on the future of gun protection in our schools, the impossibility of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable and those who purpose to kill another person. History is proof.

January 11, 2013 at 9:21 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “Criminals and the mentally unstable will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun. . . “You are beating a dead horse. . . History is proof.”

You’re perspective seems rather dire and limited in scope to me. Do you always give up so easily? I don’t think anyone believes that improving gun regulations will completely eliminate violence and the criminal element. These problems have been around since Cain and Abel and I believe the most people recognize this. No, the overall goal is reduce the level of gun violence in the U.S., and we know this particular goal is achievable. Clearly, other countries have accomplished it so we know it can be done. Britain, which has around one fifth of the population of the U.S., had 41 gun murders in 2010 while the U.S. had around 10,000.

Conservative said: “Liberals keep letting criminals loose. . . Liberals are the reason many unstable are on the streets . . . Liberals won't institutionalize the known mentally . . . Liberals go balistic over searches now. . . Liberals have been opposed to searches at airports in the past?”

Do you always just make stuff up, Conservative? For starters, it doesn’t take much research to see why we have so many seriously mentally ill people on our streets today – nobody has done anything in decades to tackle the problem. From what I can tell, the last serious attempt that any administration made was with the Mental Health Systems Act, which occurred over 30 years ago under the Jimmy Carter administration, and it wasn’t implemented due to President Ronald Reagan’s Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1981. President Reagan also turned all the responsibility for the provision of mental health services over to the states.

Conservative said: “Teachers trained to use guns may seem dimwitted to you but there will surely be many who don't think it is dimwitted and will volunteer for the job. No one will be forced to carry a gun who doesn't want the job.”

We both know that I didn’t say that these teachers were dimwitted. What I said was: "Our lawmakers’ proposals to assign teachers to security detail seems incredibly dimwitted to me. Clearly, any serious security plan of action needs to begin by focusing on the entryways into the school building not the classroom door. It also seems to me that whoever is assigned to protect a school would need to be solely focused on doing this, and I don’t see how any teacher could do this effectively since their focus is their students and their classroom.

January 13, 2013 at 10:11 a.m.
conservative said...

ML,

Your silliness is laughable. Who are you trying to fool?

For anyone who might be fooled by you I would suggest they do a Google search such as "Gun laws in Great Britain", "are guns outlawed in Great Britain", and "penalty for possessing a gun in Great Britain"

It is illegal except for the very few to even own a pistol much less an AR 15 rifle in Great Britain. It is not illegal for law abiding citizens in America to own a pistol. We have a Constitutional right, Britains don't.

You gave yourself away, when you cited Britain as a role model. You want guns baned in America.

I am going to cite several passages of a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about this role model of crime and gun control you cite as a model for America.

Here is the first:

Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control

After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.

Now focus on this fact:

"THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL IS UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON."

Now ponder that, more will come.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

January 13, 2013 at 1:48 p.m.
conservative said...

ML,

While you are pondering that you should reread your last statement. You refuted yourself with your statement about "dimwitted." I never said teachers were "dimwitted."

January 13, 2013 at 2:17 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “Your silliness is laughable. Who are you trying to fool? For anyone who might be fooled by you I would suggest they do a Google search such as "Gun laws in Great Britain", "are guns outlawed in Great Britain", and "penalty for possessing a gun in Great Britain"

You’re the one who repeatedly claimed in his post “criminals and the mentally unstable will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun” as if it were some kind of universal law. I simply pointed out to you that this is not always true. Clearly, Great Britain is a country that has its share of criminals and mentally unstable persons just like other countries do; yet, Great Britain, which has around one fifth of the population of the U.S., only had 41 gun murders in 2010 while the U.S. had around 10,000. It seems to me that if your claim “criminals and the mentally unstable will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun” were true, the number of killings due to gun violence would have been a lot higher in Great Britain. The fact that Great Britain outlaws gun ownership wouldn't matter - because according to you such people will always be able to get a gun.

January 13, 2013 at 2:48 p.m.
conservative said...

ML,

More from the Wall Street Journal piece refuting you:

First a reminder for you and anyone who might be fooled by you:

In Britain "THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL IS UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

Now the beginning of excerpts refuting you:

By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Focus on that last paragraph and please THINK.

January 13, 2013 at 2:55 p.m.
conservative said...

ML,

My statement about "“criminals and the mentally unstable will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun” is true for the discussion was about America. You are the one who is trying to add Britain to the debate.

I dare say if the Sandy Hook shooter had not killed himself, his defense would have been insanity and Liberals would agree. As I have stated, in America contrary to your wishes, we have a 2nd Amendment right to own a gun. They are EVERYWHERE and there will always be criminals and the mentally unstable who will steal or buy them from someone.

Again, who are you trying to fool?

January 13, 2013 at 3:12 p.m.
conservative said...

ML,

Your timing is great, but not for you because next up in the WSJ piece deals with the mentally unstable who are not suppose to be able to get a gun in Britain:

"Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

I will also remind you once again and to those who might be fooled by you:

"THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL IS UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

January 13, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
conservative said...

More from the WSJ piece refuting you:

First a reminder. It is illegal for a law abiding citizen to own a gun in Great Britain: "THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL IS UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

Now, even in Great Britain where it is a crime for a law abiding citizen to possess a gun, the mentally unstable were still able to obtain a gun and kill school children. Sound familiar?

"Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

Again, who are you trying to fool?

January 13, 2013 at 5:37 p.m.
conservative said...

ML,

More from the WSJ piece refuting you:

First a reminder. It is illegal for a law abiding citizen to own a gun in Great Britain: "THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A PISTOL IS UP TO 10 YEARS IN PRISON."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

"Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit."

"After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber."

In case you have already forgotten, this was Hungerford:

"In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue"

Think about that, a madman wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun unhindered before he took his own life!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

January 13, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

So much for that "pro-life" label for Christians.

January 13, 2013 at 7:09 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “Think about that, a madman wandered the streets etc.”

Perhaps it’s you who needs to think . . . especially about the bigger picture.

Statistics are showing us that Americans are killing one another with guns at rates that are simply unheard of in other advanced industrialized countries. Since 9/11, jihadist terrorists have killed 17 Americans in the U.S while 88,000 Americans have died due to gun violence from 2003 to 2010. Doesn’t this concern you at all, Conservative? It certainly concerns me.

Conservative said: “More from the WSJ piece refuting you.”

I don’t see how the WSJ quotes refute anything that I’ve said, Conservative. As I said in an earlier post to you, people have been killing one another since the days of Cain and Abel, and I don’t think anyone expects that the proposed regulations and mandated background checks for these private gun sales will totally eliminate gun violence it the U.S., but I do believe it will signfically reduce the level of gun violence in U.S., which would be a good thing. It seems to me that any sane responsible gun owner would be the first to acknowledge this.

January 13, 2013 at 9:11 p.m.
conservative said...

Myself and the Wall Street Journal has refuted everything you said.

You just refuse to acknowledge this.

January 14, 2013 at 7:17 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “Myself and the Wall Street Journal has refuted everything you said. You just refuse to acknowledge this.”

In your mind only, Conservative . . Indeed, if everybody reasoned like you, the DMV would eliminate driving safetly regulations because a pedestrian had been killed by a drunk driver.

January 14, 2013 at 1:21 p.m.
conservative said...

It always comes down to personal attacks with you Liberals, when you lose the argument. doesn't it?

You stated "and I don’t think anyone expects that the proposed regulations and mandated background checks for these private gun sales will totally eliminate gun violence it the U.S., but I do believe it will significantly reduce the level of gun violence in U.S.,"

Several points;

A Yahoo news source said that Biden would propose magazines be limited to ten rounds. Ten rounds! And you believe that will "signfically reduce the level of gun violence in U.S.,?"

Well, you are certainly entitled to your belief and I am entitled to mine and the laughter that goes with that proposalSignificantly, significantly?

The Yahoo news source also stated something generally about closing the gun show loophole. And you believe that will "signfically reduce the level of gun violence in U.S.,?" Significantly, significantly?

Well, you are certainly entitled to your belief and I am entitled to mine and the laughter that goes with that proposal.

January 14, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
conservative said...

mountainlaurel:

I have attended gun shows and purchased firearms at gun shows. I suspect there are cameras and I know there are police there so very few if any convicted felons would dare show up at one. Why? They would go to jail, they are forbidden to own or possess a firearm.

No, that doesn't mean a law would prevent them from obtaining a firearm. Why? Because they would steal or buy one off the street. They are not that dumb.

A better reason they don't attend gun shows is because there are very few bargains there. They can buy them cheaper off the street or just steal one.

When one is ignorant on any subject, they are vulnerable to exploitation. The politicians exploit the ignorant and frail of mind with failed ideas of gun control when they should focus on criminal control instead.

January 14, 2013 at 5:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative notes: “It always comes down to personal attacks with you Liberals, when you lose the argument. doesn't it?”

How so, Conservative? . . . It's essentially applying the same kind of reasoning. . . The argument that you and the NRA have been peddling is that since the proposed regulations will not totally eliminate gun violence, the proposed rules are worthless. . . I can’t think of any rules and/or regulations that will ever totally eliminate any problem. Can you?

Conservative said: "you are certainly entitled to your belief and I am entitled to mine and the laughter that goes with that proposalSignificantly, significantly?

Putting my typos and the dimwitted "arms" proposals of Tennessee’s polticians aside for a moment, I think this is good news. The general public seems to get it:

“Several gun control proposals are supported by a majority of Americans, with two measures widely popular among members of both parties, according to a Pew poll released Monday.

Proposals to limit who can buy guns received "overwhelming support," testing better than measures to restrict specific weapons or ammunition, the poll found. Eight in 10 Americans, including 90 percent of gun owners, favored laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying weapons.

Eighty-five percent favored instituting background checks for private and gun-show sales -- a policy that Vice President Joe Biden said had been the subject of "a surprising recurrence of suggestions" in his gun control talks.

Support for both ideas transcended party lines, winning over more than three-quarters of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/gun-control-poll_n_2473462.html

January 15, 2013 at 6:52 a.m.
conservative said...

mountainlaurel:

Here we go again. You arguments have been refuted so you invent a strawman accusing me of a position I do not take.

I have not made your claim ". The argument that you and the NRA have been peddling is that since the proposed regulations will not totally eliminate gun violence, the proposed rules are worthless. . ."

Your ongoing hysteria is showing. Go ahead paste my words supporting your claim.

Some points about about the Puffington Post piece:

Most people are ignorant and misinformed by a willing media about guns and so called "assault" rifles in particular. You are one of them.

I certainly want to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns. I thought that was already on the books. However, I would go further than that. I would prevent any self identified Liberal from owning a gun because they truly have mental and moral impairments.

Gun show regulation is not a big problem with me, just an inconvenience. As I have already stated there are almost no bargains there and convicted felons mostly don't attend them anyway. However, the venue would just move to flea markets or on the street.

YOUR idea of regulation is a big problem simply because you cited Great Britain as a role model where their law abiding, mentally competent citizens are not allowed by law to own a gun with up to ten years in prison if they do. Not going to happen in America, no thanks to you.

Now, about you personally, PLEASE, never own a gun, you will just shoot your eye out!

January 15, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “Here we go again. You arguments have been refuted so you invent a strawman accusing me of a position I do not take. I have not made your claim: "The argument that you and the NRA have been peddling is that since the proposed regulations will not totally eliminate gun violence, the proposed rules are worthless."

But this has been the crux of your argument. You've essentially argued this in your Jan 11-11:58 a.m. post; your Jan 11-9:21 p.m post; your Jan 13-2:55 p.m. post; your Jan 13-3:12 p.m post; and your Jan13-5:37 p.m. post. . . Granted, there was some variation here and there, but your bottom-line argument that regulations are useless because “criminals and the mentally unstable will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun” always seems to be there.

Conservative said: “I certainly want to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns. I thought that was already on the books.”

Since convicted criminals and mentally unstable persons do not wear big signs alerting everyone of their status, I believe you’re being disingenuous here. You know perfectly well that in some states like Tennessee that background checks are not currently required in these private gun sales, which is why the law needs to be changed to include background checks in these private gun sales. In other words, background check for every gun sale.

January 15, 2013 at 4:11 p.m.
conservative said...

There you go again.

Background checks at gun shows would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings.

You are being exploited by hysterical Liberals. You have continued to be hysterical yourself.

The kid was a criminal, he stole guns from his mother. His mother evidently got them legally. If his mother got them legally at a gun store gun she would also been able to obtain them legally at a gun show. This would not have preventing her son from killing those children.

I cited instances in Great Britain and could cite some more where after all guns were totally outlawed with up to ten years imprisonment for possession of a gun, criminals and mentaaly ill people still went on killing sprees with guns that were outlawed.

Now, when background checks are mandated for law abiding citizens at gun shows the killing will still go on by criminals and the mentally unstable who steal or obtain guns in some fashion apart from sales at gun shows.

Now, go ahead and make up another strawman and I will pick out one of these paragraphs and repeatedly address it to you. I am eager to see how many tries it will take for you to get it.

January 15, 2013 at 5:59 p.m.
conservative said...

From Comedy Central in New York:

"New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is signing a tough and sweeping new gun control bill into law late Tuesday."

Really!

"The bill limits magazines to seven bullets "

Wow, that ought to stop the mentally ill! But wait, according to the Connecticut state police the Sandy Hook shooter had several 30 round clips and changed them frequently firing HUNDREDS of rounds. He changed them frequently when they were still half full, video game style! I wonder where he got that idea? He shot many of the children 3 times!

"and bans semi-automatic rifles and handguns that have a "military-style feature," such as a bayonet lug."

How draconian! I guess LOOKS really can kill! At least that will stop all of those who prefer to kill at close range with a bayonet ( that is a knife attached to a rife, for close range killing when you are out of bullets for you Liberals who don't have a clue) because that has happened sooo many times.

"People who already own such guns are grandfathered in but must register them with the state."

Awesome!, that is sure to stop the mentally ill and criminals from stealing them from family members, break ins etc.

Let's see if Biden and Owebama can top that. The criminals are rolling with laughter while the mentally ill and the Liberals don't have a clue.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ny-gov-cuomo-prepares-sign-tough-gun-bill-214040530.html

January 15, 2013 at 8:35 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: “Background checks at gun shows would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings."

I guess you've forgotten the role that gun shows and poor gun regulations played in the Columbine High School killings. As I recall, an 18-year-old woman, Robyn Anderson, accompanied the two teens to a gun show where she purchased two shotguns and one rifle for the two teens. These same guns were used in the Columbine killings.

Anderson could not be charged with any crime because there was no state or federal law that prohibited the purchase of a long gun (rifle) from a private individual (non-licensed dealer). If Anderson had purchased the guns from a federally licensed dealer, the situation would have been different. The purchase would have been considered a "straw purchase" and considered illegal under federal law to make the purchase for the teens.

The teens responsible for the killings had purchased additional weapons and ammunition from other “friends” who were prosecuted and sentenced for role they played in the incident.

January 15, 2013 at 9:52 p.m.
conservative said...

mountainlaurel:

Well I see that I have made a lot of headway with you.

Your recognition that the teens "had purchased additional weapons and ammunition from other “friends” who were prosecuted and sentenced for role they played in the incident." is strong indication of that.

These teens just like all other criminals and the mentally unstable can obtain guns as I have stated previously:

"No, that doesn't mean a law would prevent them from obtaining a firearm. Why? Because they would steal or buy one off the street. They are not that dumb."

"My statement about "“criminals and the mentally unstable will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun” is true for the discussion was about America. You are the one who is trying to add Britain to the debate."

"You also seem oblivious to the fact that criminals and the mentally unstable will ALWAYS be able to obtain a gun."

"the impossibility of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable and those who purpose to kill another person. History is proof."

"You are not the first to complain about gun shows (surprised?) but have you considered that individuals can advertise in newspapers, magazines, internet, visit flea markets, etc. Regulating gun shows will accomplish nothing. Furthermore, everyone knows someone who owns a gun, even yourself, so all one has to do is ask or let it be known that one desires to buy a gun. I have bought a few that way myself."

January 16, 2013 at 7 a.m.
conservative said...

mountainlaurel:

BTW, your quote of mine:

Conservative said: “Background checks at gun shows would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings." is still true.

January 16, 2013 at 7:07 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative repeats: “your quote of mine: “Background checks at gun shows would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings." is still true.”

Yes, but the Sandy Hook tragedy does bring up the troubling mindset of some of these gun show enthusiasts and “preppers” who seem to be either directly or indirectly teaching their children that guns and violence are the way to resolve their problems.

January 16, 2013 at 9:46 a.m.
conservative said...

I disagree. I could say a lot about my disagreement and the fallacy of your thinking.

I will begin with this:

"but the Sandy Hook tragedy does bring up the troubling mindset of some of these gun show enthusiasts and “preppers"'

The Sandy Hook shooting had nothing to do with gun shows. You keep trying to tie your hysteria over Sandy Hook to gun shows. NO CONNECTION.

January 16, 2013 at 1:10 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Conservative said: "You keep trying to tie your hysteria over Sandy Hook to gun shows."

No, not really, Conservative. I was just trying to share a thought with you about the “gun culture” folks who stockpile weapons and frequently gather at these "gun shows" to buy and sell their weapons - gatherings where loaded guns are banned.

Personally, I find it amusing that a group who complains so much about public and private property “gun free zones” would feel the need to establish them at these gun shows, but I guess they're just protecting themselves from any criminal and mentally unstable attendees.

January 17, 2013 at 8:35 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.