Pure projection on the part of the author.
OK, so lets have a ‘debate’ that only allows one side to tell their viewpoint. Sounds reasonable to me.
The comments are almost 100% against the author.
My favorite: “Who wrote this steaming pile of suck and fail?” LOL
How about we begin with Barack and Michelle? How about they agree that their daughters don't need 11 armed guards.
Guys with guns are less likely to target guys with guns.
You can’t have a reasonable debate with liberals when they are gripped by mass-hysteria.
I bet the author didn’t think it was such a zany idea when Bill Clinton called for $120 million in federal grants to put officers in schools.
My experience in day to day life:
Courthouse - sheriff’s deputies and metal detector
City Council meeing - Police and metal detectors
Statehouse - State troopers double as armed guards
Informational meeting on zoning proposal, held at high school - off duty sheriff deputy moonlights as armed guard.
High school football game - off duty sheriff deputy serves as armed guard.
Heck, whenever the high school lets out in the afternoon, there are a half dozen sheriff’s directing traffic.
Censor and silence the opposition's side of the debate.
Interestingly, the San Jose Mercury News was recently caught with more than a hundred street distribution racks stolen from competing newspapers, in a metal recycling bin, at the SJMN facility.
They had been stealing competitors racks and selling 'em for the metal for years.
Marx would be proud.
All LaPierre said was that it’s better to have an armed guard than have some nut shooting completely unopposed. What is wrong with that? What am I missing here? The MSM this entire week has been acting like the guy was endorsing pedophilia. Even the NY Post was bashing him which I will take as further proof that the Post has gone leftist.
This is just one more example of the absolute sick desire by the left for shootings to happen more often. The less opposed the shooter is, the more deaths there are and the more the left can scream about destroying the 2nd amendment which is their ultimate goal.
I disagree. Millions of gun owners (and that number is growing by the day) also disagree.
Oh no! Now what? Now what? What is a liberal to do?
Oh noz!They've never had a better crises to abuse! Now what?
We really aren’t interested in debating a damned thing with these lant guzzling, dirt chute diving, gerbil abusers anyways so this should work out well.
First, this is typical liberal strategy -— silence the opposition. Clearly the editors only see free speech as valid for themselves.
Second, the suggestion to place armed security in schools was an idea offered by President Clinton in 1999. But let’s not allow facts to get in the way of a lynch mob that is hell-bent on attacking firearm owners.
Third, more gun control laws are not the answer. What is missing from the discussion (if opposing opinions are allowed) is that Columbine took place during the Clinton assault weapon ban and that Newtown took place in a state that has its own assault weapon ban.
It is clear that the editors are not interested in actually defending our children in the same way the children of President Obama, David Gregory and other elites utilize -— armed security — no the editors are interested in scoring political points against firearm owners.
The editors offer no solutions, no ideas.....just more hate-filled pablum aimed at the NRA and lawful firearm owners.
I find it interesting that not one child has been killed by a fire in our schools in the past 50 years. Having sprinklers, fire extinguishers, fire-retardant materials, trained personnel and regular drills for the students and staff has clearly led to a safer environment. But I am sure the editors see all this preparation as foolish buffoonery by a handful of neanderthals.
Armed guards in schools? Who could be so crazy as to suggest schools be guarded like banks? And imagine having armed men in cars driving past schools every day. Preposterous!
this is the alinsky rules.
ridicule the opponent.
polarize and isolate
then exclude them.
The answer, in a season of failed sales, is to isolate teh advertisers. who advertises with this fool. focus on the advertiser and silence the debate.
” bizarre, so unhinged from reality, “
Bizarre was the LaPierre media talking points word last week. Dems have decided add “unhinged from reality”.
This is just the start of a possible series of actions that the San Jose Mercury News ought to demand, if they really believed the "suck and fail" they spew.
Bottom line, SJMN, you first. Disarm yourselves first. Let's us know how that goes.
Any you're a disgrace for a newspaper coming out to suppress the speech of others. Obviously, you're losing the argument or you'd want the NRA to shout their nonsense from the rooftops.
“The ideas spouted by National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre in his disturbing statement Friday morning were so bizarre, so unhinged from reality, that the organizations leadership cannot be considered serious participants in the national discussion over gun rights.”
Did you run this editorial when President Bill Clinton proposed the same idea? No ? Then STFU because it is YOU that does belong at the debate.
If no one needs armed security, I suggest firing the entire secret service detachments guarding 0 bummer, Sasquatch and their offspring.
The more I watch (with sheer, giggly delight) the reaction to LOHUD.com’s posting of gun owners in the NY area, and the subsequent posting of the LOHUD staff’s personal information, I think this should be the reaction to every publication, public figure, politician, etc. that advocates for gun control and against common sense.
In other words, from now on, we LOHUD the bastards. No big deal, right? The police will protect them, should there be any problems.
Here’s a good starting point: SJMN’s staff info on Linked In: