PDA

View Full Version : Arizona Pushes to Allow Students and Professors to Be Armed


Butterscotch Stallion
03-01-2011, 04:06 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/politics/27guns.html?_r=3&hpw

Professors are aghast.Ha!

"Anne Mariucci, the chairwoman of the Arizona Board of Regents, the governing board for the state’s universities, said she would prefer that universities be places where disagreements are resolved by debating, not squeezing the trigger.

Yes, the world is a dangerous place these days, but I don’t think you fight fire with fire,” she said. “I don’t think that bringing guns on campuses is the image of the peaceful, civil discourse that universities are supposed to be about.”

Shananahan
03-01-2011, 04:08 PM
They're probably aghast because they're smart enough to realize what a dumb idea this would be.

Rohirrim
03-01-2011, 04:24 PM
Yay Arizona! Let's strap 'em on! Lock and load!
http://www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/tombstone-movie.jpg

SonOfLe-loLang
03-01-2011, 04:26 PM
What the **** happened to that state?

Archer81
03-01-2011, 04:35 PM
she said. “I don’t think that bringing guns on campuses is the image of the peaceful, civil discourse that universities are supposed to be about.”


Right...



:Broncos:

Butterscotch Stallion
03-01-2011, 04:41 PM
Right...



:Broncos:

If you don't fight fire with fire what do you fight with? I'll just wait for the police to arrive?

SonOfLe-loLang
03-01-2011, 04:44 PM
If you don't fight fire with fire what do fight with? I'll just wait for the police to arrive?

Last time i checked, gun attacks on campus were hardly a daily occurance. If this law is somehow an answer to the few crazies out there, its the overreaction of the century and, i assure you, will only cause more harm than good.

Archer81
03-01-2011, 04:44 PM
If you don't fight fire with fire what do fight with? I'll just wait for the police to arrive?


If this is how the people of Arizona are responding to the shooting in Tucson and cartel driven violence across the border, more power to them.

I was questioning the assertion that universities are bastions of civil discourse.

:Broncos:

WolfpackGuy
03-01-2011, 04:47 PM
I'm sure the bursars are licking their chops thinking of a dollar amount they can heap on students for this.

For real, WTF is going on in Warizona?

Dukes
03-01-2011, 05:17 PM
I'm sure the bursars are licking their chops thinking of a dollar amount they can heap on students for this.

For real, WTF is going on in Warizona?

Is it really that hard to figure out?

WABronco
03-01-2011, 05:30 PM
The dumbest **** I've heard in ages and anyone trying to rationalize it is a fool from the dark ages.

Anthony Daykin, the police chief at the University of Arizona in Tucson, where the shootings occurred, said his officers would be at a loss if they arrived at a shooting scene in a lecture hall holding hundreds of students and found scores of people pointing, and possibly shooting, weapons at one another.

L O L

I know a dude from Arizona. He talks all the time about guns and how he can conceal carry. He also thinks it's right to kill abortion doctors. The **** is in the water down there?

ant1999e
03-01-2011, 05:44 PM
I know a dude from Arizona. He talks all the time about guns and how he can conceal carry. He also thinks it's right to kill abortion doctors. The **** is in the water down there?

I know a chick from AZ. She thinks this is the craziest thing in the world. She also thinks jamming a hole in a baby's head and sucking out it's brains is o.k.

WABronco
03-01-2011, 05:48 PM
I know a chick from AZ. She thinks this is the craziest thing in the world. She also thinks jamming a hole in a baby's head and sucking out it's brains is o.k.

Stay away devil people.

El Minion
03-01-2011, 05:54 PM
I know a chick from AZ too...

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0712/masturbation-oldy-but-a-goodie-demotivational-poster-1199115001.gif

Houshyamama
03-01-2011, 05:55 PM
I wish some of the teachers at Columbine had been allowed to protect themselves and their students by carrying a concealed weapon.

Broncobiv
03-01-2011, 05:57 PM
I'm (fairly) normal! I swear!

Archer81
03-01-2011, 06:00 PM
Funny thing about living in Colorado...I could care less what Arizona does in its legislature. If the people are pushing for it, like I said, good for them. Now if Colorado decides to arm their teachers and college students, then I might have a dog in the fight.

Even then I dont think I'd care. If someone is going to shoot me, they are going to shoot me. Not alot I can do about that except shoot them first...

:Broncos:

Cosmo
03-01-2011, 06:06 PM
I don't totally disagree with this. You see, those that do carry concealed firearms have to go under huge amounts of background checks and stuff. If you just allowed a teacher, what would stop him from killing an entire class?

To make it right, you have to let multiple people carry guns, by doing so, if someone is stupid enough to pull one out and try to kill someone else, 10 others pull their guns and kill him on sight, saving many lives.

Besides, in a class of 200, even in arizona, you might have 5-10 carry guns. Sure, it could backfire under extremely low chance circumstances, but the way it is now, people that kill other people don't obey the law, and therefore kill until the bullets are out, or until someone sacrifices their life or the police arrive.

This is not as dumb as it sounds.

Archer81
03-01-2011, 06:13 PM
I don't totally disagree with this. You see, those that do carry concealed firearms have to go under huge amounts of background checks and stuff. If you just allowed a teacher, what would stop him from killing an entire class?

To make it right, you have to let multiple people carry guns, by doing so, if someone is stupid enough to pull one out and try to kill someone else, 10 others pull their guns and kill him on sight, saving many lives.

Besides, in a class of 200, even in arizona, you might have 5-10 carry guns. Sure, it could backfire under extremely low chance circumstances, but the way it is now, people that kill other people don't obey the law, and therefore kill until the bullets are out, or until someone sacrifices their life or the police arrive.

This is not as dumb as it sounds.


It is not as dumb as it sounds. However, very few people are aware that states have the ability to pass laws that their own populace is pushing for. Somehow Arizona considering this will effect people in NY and Massachusetts.

Crazy country.

:Broncos:

gyldenlove
03-01-2011, 06:16 PM
I don't totally disagree with this. You see, those that do carry concealed firearms have to go under huge amounts of background checks and stuff. If you just allowed a teacher, what would stop him from killing an entire class?

To make it right, you have to let multiple people carry guns, by doing so, if someone is stupid enough to pull one out and try to kill someone else, 10 others pull their guns and kill him on sight, saving many lives.

Besides, in a class of 200, even in arizona, you might have 5-10 carry guns. Sure, it could backfire under extremely low chance circumstances, but the way it is now, people that kill other people don't obey the law, and therefore kill until the bullets are out, or until someone sacrifices their life or the police arrive.

This is not as dumb as it sounds.

That only works if the first guy doesn't pull out a big gun, if you are on the business end of an assault rifle you are not going to have time to pull out your .38 or your 9mm, you are just going to get dead really fast. In a lecture hall of about 200 people, I would estimate you could get off somewhere between 3 and 4 clips of ammo before anyone has their gun out and has it pointing in your general direction.

There is a reason why there are so many murders in America and I don't think it is because Americans are that much more homicidal.

Houshyamama
03-01-2011, 06:17 PM
That only works if the first guy doesn't pull out a big gun, if you are on the business end of an assault rifle you are not going to have time to pull out your .38 or your 9mm, you are just going to get dead really fast. In a lecture hall of about 200 people, I would estimate you could get off somewhere between 3 and 4 clips of ammo before anyone has their gun out and has it pointing in your general direction.

There is a reason why there are so many murders in America and I don't think it is because Americans are that much more homicidal.

How many school shootings are there where the gunman used an assault rifle?

What the **** are you smoking? You're saying a gunman could squeeze off an entire clip, reload the clip, squeeze off that entire clip, reload another clip, squeeze that entire clip off, and potentially repeat another time before I could reach to my chest and pull a handgun out? You're not thinking clearly.

extralife
03-01-2011, 06:19 PM
This is ridiculous. People that open fire inside a lecture hall do not plan on walking out alive. The only thing that would ever happen if six other dudes were packing heat is four of them would run and/or hide, the fifth would attempt to shoot the real shooter and fail, and the last would shoot the fifth in a moment of panic and confusion. And that's more or less a best case scenario.

Houshyamama
03-01-2011, 06:22 PM
This is ridiculous. People that open fire inside a lecture hall do not plan on walking out alive. The only thing that would ever happen if six other dudes were packing heat is four of them would run and/or hide, the fifth would attempt to shoot the real shooter and fail, and the last would shoot the fifth in a moment of panic and confusion. And that's more or less a best case scenario.

When I was at ASU I knew plenty of former and current military personnel getting their degree. You're saying that in a class of 100 people, one of these trained individuals couldn't calmly pull out his weapon and pop the guy in the chest?

extralife
03-01-2011, 06:41 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying.

and even if he could, there's no guarantee four other people don't give it a shot and hit the girl in row 4 in the chest. or crazy panicing people that have had a really ****ty day start getting into an argument over what to do. or the swat team bursts in and has to contend with 6 people holding guns.

but it's not even about that. it's about what happens when 4000 twenty year old drunk people are running around with concealed weaponry on the 99.99% of days in which no one has planned to open fire in a lecture hall.

uplink
03-01-2011, 06:44 PM
So if a student starts talking in class the prof. can pull out a magnum and say, 'are you feeling lucky today punk'.

WABronco
03-01-2011, 06:56 PM
I would rather take the minuscule risk that I'll get shot or blown up by some psycho than deal with the average retard having a gun or the average TSA worker grabbing my dick.

Some nice troll attempts in here, though. At least that's what I hope is going on.

AZorange1
03-01-2011, 07:01 PM
I'm (fairly) normal! I swear!

Me too! Me too! But it's probably cause I don't drink the water. (you do, you die)

Houshyamama
03-01-2011, 07:16 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying.

and even if he could, there's no guarantee four other people don't give it a shot and hit the girl in row 4 in the chest. or crazy panicing people that have had a really ****ty day start getting into an argument over what to do. or the swat team bursts in and has to contend with 6 people holding guns.

but it's not even about that. it's about what happens when 4000 twenty year old drunk people are running around with concealed weaponry on the 99.99% of days in which no one has planned to open fire in a lecture hall.

Yeah, it does sound like a recipe for disaster.

Garcia Bronco
03-02-2011, 01:06 AM
when that dip**** opened fire on my school and killed 31 people he didn't even have to think someone would be shooting back.

broncocalijohn
03-02-2011, 01:34 AM
While it sounds crazy, I doubt an 18 year old is going to get a concealed weapons permit. They would be far and between. I would guess they would allow concealed weapon holders to be able to bring their concealed guns onto campus. I wouldnt mind if a few of those professors had a permit too.

footstepsfrom#27
03-02-2011, 06:02 AM
I don't totally disagree with this. You see, those that do carry concealed firearms have to go under huge amounts of background checks and stuff. If you just allowed a teacher, what would stop him from killing an entire class?
I know right, cuz teachers are notoriously violent..."Joe did you finish your homework? No? This was your final warning....BANG! Take that slacker!"

Stupid idea from a state that seems to have a few of 'em.

Archer81
03-02-2011, 06:46 AM
I know right, cuz teachers are notoriously violent..."Joe did you finish your homework? No? This was your final warning....BANG! Take that slacker!"

Stupid idea from a state that seems to have a few of 'em.


Usually the people who own and concealed carry a weapon are the ones that are most responsible with it. I really doubt a professor would whip out a gun for missing homework assignments. The scenario you proposed is overly juvenile and without much forethought.


:Broncos:

jhns
03-02-2011, 07:00 AM
I don't see the big deal. Just make sure you leave school if you hear about a mass layoff.

ColoradoDarin
03-02-2011, 07:03 AM
The amount of ignorance in this thread is awesome!

footstepsfrom#27
03-02-2011, 07:47 AM
Usually the people who own and concealed carry a weapon are the ones that are most responsible with it. I really doubt a professor would whip out a gun for missing homework assignments. The scenario you proposed is overly juvenile and without much forethought.

:Broncos:
Exactly...which is why it got your goat there Capt. Obvious. :giggle: Others knew it was a deliberate exageration intended as a literary tool poking fun at the fringe lunacy that thinks arming kids and teachers in class rooms is a good idea.

Back to reguarly scheduled programing...

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 07:59 AM
What the **** happened to that state?

California is the joke, not AZ.

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 08:05 AM
This is a ridiculous idea. Rather than preventing another Virginia Tech (which is hardly a daily occurance), you just make it easier for a disturbed student (or professor, for that matter) to walk around campus locked and loaded.

Cosmo
03-02-2011, 08:05 AM
Ok, this thread is getting ridiculous, but I still agree with the basic concept of the law.

I am a teacher, I am very willing to give my life to save others, but for the most part I would be throwing it away if someone came into the school with a gun and I had some books to defend myself and others with. If I were able to get a gun permit (again, this is not easy to obtain, requires near 20 pages of paper work and loads of background check stuff), and I heard a gun shot in school, I know that I could stop him before more students needed to die or get hurt.

You still all seem to think that having guns allowed with concealed permits would all of the sudden mean 90% of everyone would have a gun. How many people do you know that carry a concealed weapon? How many teachers have gone "postal" on their students (nothing stops a madman from bringing a gun to school currently)?

Point is simple.

Passing a law like this will not increase concealed weapon carriers.
Those with the permit know how to shoot the weapon (classes are required).
Those with the permit are law abiding citizens.
If a moment comes up where someone wants to commit a crime, odds say you save lives, not endanger them, any presumptions otherwise are ridiculous.

jhns
03-02-2011, 08:10 AM
This is a ridiculous idea. Rather than preventing another Virginia Tech (which is hardly a daily occurance), you just make it easier for a disturbed student (or professor, for that matter) to walk around campus locked and loaded.

How so? Can you name a time pne of these guys were stopped because there was a no carry law? The criminals are the only ones with guns in these places now....

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 08:12 AM
An armed society is a free society.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 08:21 AM
That only works if the first guy doesn't pull out a big gun, if you are on the business end of an assault rifle you are not going to have time to pull out your .38 or your 9mm, you are just going to get dead really fast. In a lecture hall of about 200 people, I would estimate you could get off somewhere between 3 and 4 clips of ammo before anyone has their gun out and has it pointing in your general direction.

There is a reason why there are so many murders in America and I don't think it is because Americans are that much more homicidal.

I love when the Euro voice of reason comes out. I always hated that "guns dont kill people/people kill people BS" line.

This idea is simply insane.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 08:21 AM
An armed society is a free society.

i really need to move out of this country

jhns
03-02-2011, 08:23 AM
i really need to move out of this country

Yeah you do.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 08:25 AM
when that dip**** opened fire on my school and killed 31 people he didn't even have to think someone would be shooting back.

So one isolated incident proves we should arm entire campuses? Americans are so reactionary.

DarkHorse30
03-02-2011, 08:31 AM
Usually the people who own and concealed carry a weapon are the ones that are most responsible with it. I really doubt a professor would whip out a gun for missing homework assignments. The scenario you proposed is overly juvenile and without much forethought.


:Broncos:

Agreed. People kill people. More guns please.......and oil, while you're at it. Let's solve our economy problems by manufacturing weapons and digging for oil. America...one BA country

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 08:31 AM
i really need to move out of this country

What do you mean? You live in Cali!

California--the joke of the nation and the bad liberal experiement that continues to spiral into the abyss.

I'm not suprised by your disgust. You've been brain washed by the liberal left. This is the state that embodies post modernism and leads the US in crime, and in illegal imigration, and in budget deficit.

Congrats Cali, you've failed again.

:thumbs::rofl::thumbs:

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 08:35 AM
How so? Can you name a time pne of these guys were stopped because there was a no carry law? The criminals are the only ones with guns in these places now....

The guy at VT wasn't a criminal, first of all. These campus attacks are not being carried out by hardened criminals, but rather by mentally ill individuals. The idea that someone is going to pull a Wyatt Earp and save the day in these senarios is laughably naiive.

Hercules Rockefeller
03-02-2011, 08:41 AM
I love when the Euro voice of reason comes out. I always hated that "guns dont kill people/people kill people BS" line.

This idea is simply insane.

Euro voice of reason?

He claims someone can get off 3 or 4 clips from an assault rifle before someone can pull out their handgun.

Really? Someone is going to pump off 80+ rounds from a semi-automatic rifle to include reload time before anyone can reach to their waist, shoulder, back, etc. and pull out a gun?

All that post showed is that he has no real world experience with guns.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 08:42 AM
What do you mean? You live in Cali!

California--the joke of the nation and the bad liberal experiement that continues to spiral into the abyss.

I'm not suprised by your disgust. You've been brain washed by the liberal left. This is the state that embodies post modernism and leads the US in crime, and in illegal imigration, and in budget deficit.

Congrats Cali, you've failed again.

:thumbs::rofl::thumbs:

We've argued politics before and you've proven you 1) dont know too much about it and 2) we'll never agree. So lets just leave it at that. Go vote Palin in 2012 and enjoy your hellhole

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 08:43 AM
Euro voice of reason?

He claims someone can get off 3 or 4 clips from an assault rifle before someone can pull out their handgun.

Really? Someone is going to pump off 80+ rounds from a semi-automatic rifle to include reload time before anyone can reach to their waist, shoulder, back, etc. and pull out a gun?

All that post showed is that he has no real world experience with guns.

Thanks semantics police

Hercules Rockefeller
03-02-2011, 08:46 AM
Thanks semantics police

Semantics? Try again.

It shows someone to be completely naive on the issue if he thinks that's physically possible.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 08:48 AM
I love when the Euro voice of reason comes out. I always hated that "guns dont kill people/people kill people BS" line.

This idea is simply insane.

If you look to Europe as the voice of reason you are seriously ****ed in the head.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 08:53 AM
If you look to Europe as the voice of reason you are seriously ****ed in the head.

Enjoy your american exceptionalism. Europe aint perfect either God knows, but at least they recognize they live in a community with other people.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 08:53 AM
We've argued politics before and you've proven you 1) dont know too much about it and 2) we'll never agree. So lets just leave it at that. Go vote Palin in 2012 and enjoy your hellhole

We've argued politics and you've lost the arguments. I'm not a republican, I'm an independent. You are a progressive-socialist-liberal-democrat from Cali. The biggest irony in all of this is that California has more problems than all the other conservative states combined, yet you still think you know something that the rest of the US doesn't know.

The joke is on you.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 08:56 AM
Enjoy your american exceptionalism. Europe aint perfect either God knows, but at least they recognize they live in a community with other people.

wtf are you talking about? European history is filled with war, dictators, corrupt regimes, socialist dictatorships, genocide and economic instibility.

But you keep living the dream... or the nightmare.

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 08:57 AM
You have a lecture hall of 200 people. Let's conservatively say that 10 "law-abiding citizens" are armed. An unknown gunman opens fire. In the panic and confusion that follows, an terrified individual pulls out his weapons and idientifies a gunman a few rows ups. Now how in the hell is this scared individual supposed to tell the difference between the "real" gunman and one of his fellow scared classmates? Bottom line, this law would simply create more chaos in such a situation and probably lead to additional deaths/injuries than would have otherwise happened.

jhns
03-02-2011, 08:59 AM
The guy at VT wasn't a criminal, first of all. These campus attacks are not being carried out by hardened criminals, but rather by mentally ill individuals. The idea that someone is going to pull a Wyatt Earp and save the day in these senarios is laughably naiive.

A guy that killed multiple people isn't a criminal? Ok....

The guys doing the shootings are not being stopped by the laws that are stopping the good people from carrying guns. Your spin doesn't make sense.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 09:00 AM
We've argued politics and you've lost the arguments. I'm not a republican, I'm an independent. You are a progressive-socialist-liberal-democrat from Cali. The biggest irony in all of this is that California has more problems than all the other conservative states combined, yet you still think you know something that the rest of the US doesn't know.

The joke is on you.

I've lost the arguments? Thats laughable. CALIFORNIA ISNT A LIBERAL ANYTHING. We, one, are a STATE that is at the mercy of the country. Where is my universal healthcare? Where is my universal childcare? Where is my free college? Where is universal Pre-K? Where is more income equality? THERE IS NOTHING LIBERAL ABOUT CALIFORNIA. California is a victim of inflated budgets, failed plans, and horrible politics and the complete inability to change anything because everything needs a 2/3s vote and it never happens. They've had ****ty dems/they've had ****ty republicans, but to imply that California is some socialistic experiment gone awry shows YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DEMO SOCIALISTIC POLITICS!

California has more problems than conservative states combined? Look around the ****ing country, there are a gazillion broke states at the moment. But by all means, keep lowering taxes on people who can afford to pay them...enjoy the flea market this country is becoming.

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 09:00 AM
A guy that killed multiple people isn't a criminal? Ok....

Dumbass...I meant he did not have a criminal record PRIOR to the shooting...i.e., there was nothing to prevent him from legally possessing a firea arm.

The guys doing the shootings are not being stopped by the laws that are stopping the good people from carrying guns. Your spin doesn't make sense.

You're pretty ignorant.

jhns
03-02-2011, 09:02 AM
You have a lecture hall of 200 people. Let's conservatively say that 10 are armed. In the panic and confusion that follows, an terrified individual pulls out his weapons and idientifies a gunman a few rows ups. Now how in the hell is this scared individual supposed to tell the difference between the "real" gunman and one of his fellow scared classmates? Bottom line, this law would simply create more chaos in such a situation and probably lead to additional deaths/injuries than would have otherwise happened.

That is easy. One guy is pointing toward the people running away while others are pointing at that individual. If you cant hear were gunfire started going off, you are deaf...

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 09:03 AM
You have a lecture hall of 200 people. Let's conservatively say that 10 "law-abiding citizens" are armed. An unknown gunman opens fire. In the panic and confusion that follows, an terrified individual pulls out his weapons and idientifies a gunman a few rows ups. Now how in the hell is this scared individual supposed to tell the difference between the "real" gunman and one of his fellow scared classmates? Bottom line, this law would simply create more chaos in such a situation and probably lead to additional deaths/injuries than would have otherwise happened.

I dont get why others can't see this.

Pseudofool
03-02-2011, 09:05 AM
Imagining how much cooler hazing can be with firearms!

Seriously absurd idea. The last thing we need to do is arm our the most inebriated parts of our society.

jhns
03-02-2011, 09:05 AM
Dumbass...I meant he did not have a criminal record PRIOR to the shooting...i.e., there was nothing to prevent him from legally possessing a firea arm.



You're pretty ignorant.

Ok, and what stopped him from carrying that gun while there were laws that said he couldn't? Your argument is that he would carry one if it was legal, well he did carry one when it wasn't legal. Kind of a dumb argument. Then you want to call me ignorant... Funny stuff.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 09:06 AM
You have a lecture hall of 200 people. Let's conservatively say that 10 are armed. In the panic and confusion that follows, an terrified individual pulls out his weapons and idientifies a gunman a few rows ups. Now how in the hell is this scared individual supposed to tell the difference between the "real" gunman and one of his fellow scared classmates? Bottom line, this law would simply create more chaos in such a situation and probably lead to additional deaths/injuries than would have otherwise happened.

Hey, I can make up a story too:

You have a lecture hall of 200 people. Let's conservatively say that 10 are armed. In the panic and confusion that follows (follows what?? who knows but I'll play along) an individual (who has been properly trained in how to fire his/her pistol) pulls out his/her weapon and identifies a gunman. The gunman is easily identifiable because the gunman is carrying an automatic rifle and is screaming at the top if his lungs he's gonna kill everyone. The armed citizen hides behind a chair and when the armed citizen gets a clear shot at the crazed gunman, he/she pulls the trigger and drops the armed gunman. Bottom line, the armed gunman is dead and law enforcement shows up to help clean up the mess.

jhns
03-02-2011, 09:08 AM
Imagining how much cooler hazing can be with firearms!

Seriously absurd idea. The last thing we need to do is arm our the most inebriated parts of our society.

Those same individuals can get these permits to carry anyways. That is already legal. Why would the number of people getting permits change just because they are allowed in one new place?

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 09:09 AM
I've lost the arguments? Thats laughable. CALIFORNIA ISNT A LIBERAL ANYTHING. We, one, are a STATE that is at the mercy of the country. Where is my universal healthcare? Where is my universal childcare? Where is my free college? Where is universal Pre-K? Where is more income equality? THERE IS NOTHING LIBERAL ABOUT CALIFORNIA. California is a victim of inflated budgets, failed plans, and horrible politics and the complete inability to change anything because everything needs a 2/3s vote and it never happens. They've had ****ty dems/they've had ****ty republicans, but to imply that California is some socialistic experiment gone awry shows YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DEMO SOCIALISTIC POLITICS!

California has more problems than conservative states combined? Look around the ****ing country, there are a gazillion broke states at the moment. But by all means, keep lowering taxes on people who can afford to pay them...enjoy the flea market this country is becoming.

:rofl:

I rest my case.

Rigs11
03-02-2011, 09:11 AM
this is wrong on so many levels. Why are we going back to the cobowy days? Waht the fack is happening to this country?

Rohirrim
03-02-2011, 09:14 AM
Ever seen a real shoot-out? The average, untrained person hides behind something, holds the gun up over the hiding place, and blazes away, or runs away while firing behind them. This is why you read about shootouts where dozens of bullets are fired and nobody gets hit.

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 09:15 AM
Hey, I can make up a story too:

You have a lecture hall of 200 people. Let's conservatively say that 10 are armed. In the panic and confusion that follows (follows what?? who knows but I'll play along) an individual (who has been properly trained in how to fire his/her pistol) pulls out his/her weapon and identifies a gunman. The gunman is easily identifiable because the gunman is carrying an automatic rifle and is screaming at the top if his lungs he's gonna kill everyone. The armed citizen hides behind a chair and when the armed citizen gets a clear shot at the crazed gunman, he/she pulls the trigger and drops the armed gunman. Bottom line, the armed gunman is dead and law enforcement shows up to help clean up the mess.

My scenario is far more likely than yours.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 09:15 AM
:rofl:

I rest my case.

Wow, WELL ARGUED!

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 09:16 AM
My scenario is far more likely than yours.

Tombstone RJ looks forward to the post apocolyptic society where no one trusts each other and every transaction is done with a gun in eachother's faces

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 09:19 AM
Wow, WELL ARGUED!

Your the one flaming out. This is a typical response of an elitist lefty--blame everyone but yourself.

Good God man, your part of the problem and you don't even see it! This is why I laugh, I laugh at you and you're ilk.

:rofl:

schaaf
03-02-2011, 09:19 AM
While it sounds crazy, I doubt an 18 year old is going to get a concealed weapons permit. They would be far and between. I would guess they would allow concealed weapon holders to be able to bring their concealed guns onto campus. I wouldnt mind if a few of those professors had a permit too.

I got my concealed weapons permit a week after my 18th birthday. Still keep a .22 Mag in my center console. But I think it might be a little easier to get a concealed weapons permit in Montana than other places

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 09:21 AM
Your the one flaming out. This is a typical response of an elitist lefty--blame everyone but yourself.

Good God man, your part of the problem and you don't even see it! This is why I laugh, I laugh at you and you're ilk.

:rofl:

I'm "part of the problem" Hmmm...THAT DOESNT EVEN MAKE A BIT OF ****ING SENSE.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 09:21 AM
Tombstone RJ looks forward to the post apocolyptic society where no one trusts each other and every transaction is done with a gun in eachother's faces

oh the hypocrisy of the left.

I do trust people, this is why I'm ok with the AZ law. I trust my fellow citizens with their guns.

It's you who do not trust.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 09:23 AM
I'm "part of the problem" Hmmm...THAT DOESNT EVEN MAKE A BIT OF ****ING SENSE.

Yep, your part of the problem. You want more government, more entitlements, less individual responsibility.

JJG
03-02-2011, 09:27 AM
My scenario is far more likely than yours.

any proof?

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 09:28 AM
Yep, your part of the problem. You want more government, more entitlements, less individual responsibility.

You're hopeless. You honestly think the purpose of Government is meant as some oppressive entity, when the purpose of government is to serve the people/state. This is why i cant stand when assholes like Donald Trump say government should be run like a business. If government should be run like a business, then the first order should be murdering old people since they are the biggest strain on the economy. ITS PURPOSE IS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.

And, by the way, not everyone is born on equal footing, as much as you republicans think thats the way it is.

Dont worry though, once the world fails, youll have your post-apocolyptic society. Start saving your cans and your guns...youre gonna need em.

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 09:28 AM
any proof?

A simple exercise in logic.

Miss I.
03-02-2011, 09:35 AM
Okay, so from what I am reading, they are talking about only the univerisities and only those over 21 years of age. Just to clarify the debate because I read something about 18 year olds and that isn't being discussed at least not in the AZ case.
"In Arizona, known for its gun-friendly ways, state lawmakers are pushing three bills this year focused on arming professors and others over the age of 21 on Arizona campuses."

Now I am from AZ, went to high school and to college there and was working at the University in 2002 when the Nursing School thing happened, I was in an office about 5 blocks away from it. Will not bore you all with the detail though. I also have family who shop at the Safeway where the shootings occured recently. Heck I shop there when I am visiting. The psychotic involved went to the same schools my brother did, just after him. It's just odd.

I have a few things. I don't think the gun initiative is a good idea. Individuals on their own are capable of handling guns, but enmasse I just see bad things happening as a group panics in a classroom. It just seems unwise. What I would think might be a more sensible approach is more training professionals being armed and available, silent alarms in the classroom, installing similar metal detectors in the buildings, like at airports, creating exit strategies for emergencies to include fire, attacks, etc. Providing CPR and basic self defense courses for students and staff. Besides I seem to recall being able to carry pepper spray and other self defense items too. I realize that an armed gunmen or several armed gun men is not as easy as spraying a mugger in close proximity, but a group of people together enmasse can overwhelm in a limited space. Angry mobs seem to work so well in old Frankenstein movies.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 09:40 AM
My scenario is far more likely than yours.

can you prove that?

Cosmo
03-02-2011, 09:41 AM
Hey, I can make up a story too:

You have a lecture hall of 200 people. Let's conservatively say that 10 are armed. In the panic and confusion that follows (follows what?? who knows but I'll play along) an individual (who has been properly trained in how to fire his/her pistol) pulls out his/her weapon and identifies a gunman. The gunman is easily identifiable because the gunman is carrying an automatic rifle and is screaming at the top if his lungs he's gonna kill everyone. The armed citizen hides behind a chair and when the armed citizen gets a clear shot at the crazed gunman, he/she pulls the trigger and drops the armed gunman. Bottom line, the armed gunman is dead and law enforcement shows up to help clean up the mess.

This is much more likely than all the law abiding gun carrying (and trained) citizens shooting each other because they can't recognize the person executing unarmed people.

Look, without guns being allowed, people die, usually dozens if not more.

Guns allowed, yes, people will still die. The point is that less will die. In a classroom, I doubt I could pull out a gun fast enough to stop a shooter from killing a few, but he sure is hell isn't going to reload or take the time to search classrooms with more to kill. It's sad that so many of you have so little confidence in a law abiding american that has passed background checks, taken classes and has signed documents promising to handle themselves and their gun in a certain way or be subject to punishment. You seem to be defending the idiots that kill people; like, oh, they were just sick in the head but completely normal law abiding citizens. They broke the law when the obtained the gun illegally, they broke the law by bringing a weapon outside of their home without a concealed weapon permit, and they broke the law when they thought and acted upon their desire to kill people.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 09:45 AM
Okay, so from what I am reading, they are talking about only the univerisities and only those over 21 years of age. Just to clarify the debate because I read something about 18 year olds and that isn't being discussed at least not in the AZ case.
"In Arizona, known for its gun-friendly ways, state lawmakers are pushing three bills this year focused on arming professors and others over the age of 21 on Arizona campuses."

Now I am from AZ, went to high school and to college there and was working at the University in 2002 when the Nursing School thing happened, I was in an office about 5 blocks away from it. Will not bore you all with the detail though. I also have family who shop at the Safeway where the shootings occured recently. Heck I shop there when I am visiting. The psychotic involved went to the same schools my brother did, just after him. It's just odd.

I have a few things. I don't think the gun initiative is a good idea. Individuals on their own are capable of handling guns, but enmasse I just see bad things happening as a group panics in a classroom. It just seems unwise. What I would think might be a more sensible approach is more training professionals being armed and available, silent alarms in the classroom, installing similar metal detectors in the buildings, like at airports, creating exit strategies for emergencies to include fire, attacks, etc. Providing CPR and basic self defense courses for students and staff. Besides I seem to recall being able to carry pepper spray and other self defense items too. I realize that an armed gunmen or several armed gun men is not as easy as spraying a mugger in close proximity, but a group of people together enmasse can overwhelm in a limited space. Angry mobs seem to work so well in old Frankenstein movies.

At that recent AZ shooting, wasn't there a guy there who was armed? I seem to remember reading something about this.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 09:46 AM
You're hopeless. You honestly think the purpose of Government is meant as some oppressive entity, when the purpose of government is to serve the people/state. This is why i cant stand when a-holes like Donald Trump say government should be run like a business. If government should be run like a business, then the first order should be murdering old people since they are the biggest strain on the economy. ITS PURPOSE IS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.

And, by the way, not everyone is born on equal footing, as much as you republicans think thats the way it is.

Dont worry though, once the world fails, youll have your post-apocolyptic society. Start saving your cans and your guns...youre gonna need em.

:rofl:

You're the lefty liberal and your hate is bubbling up in all sorts of ugly ways.

You fail. Again.

JJG
03-02-2011, 09:46 AM
A simple exercise in logic.

so no, you don't have proof....

Thought so

Dedhed
03-02-2011, 09:47 AM
Somehow Arizona considering this will effect people in NY and Massachusetts.


Somehow a gay marriage threatens the sanctity of your marriage.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 09:51 AM
:rofl:

You're the lefty liberal and your hate is bubbling up in all sorts of ugly ways.

You fail. Again.

I love when the counter argument is "you stink! Youre a poopoo head" Well done. I dont have hate. I have incredible frustration. Theres a difference.

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 09:53 AM
so no, you don't have proof....

Thought so

You dumbass, how do you prove such a thing? You rightards want to turn our universities into a labratory to test out your wacked-out, cowboy theories. Even if a person is highly trained, the LAST thing on their mind in a classroom setting is that someone is going to open fire. They are trying to process the info being taught by their professor, or they're hungover, or they're wondering if the cute girl in the short skirt two seats over was flirting before class or just being nice. To think that it is LIKELY that as soon as the bullets started flying that an individual would immediately be able to process the unexpected turn of events and calmly and rationally go into action is just stupid.

Dedhed
03-02-2011, 09:57 AM
Guns allowed, yes, people will still die. The point is that less will die.

Does this smack anyone else as utterly absurd logic?

WIldbill
03-02-2011, 09:57 AM
Every time a state talks about allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry a gun, whether it be the original concealed carry laws or this Arizona bill, the same arguments are made. That somehow placing a weapon in the hand of a responsible person is a recipe for disaster. As of yet all these concerns have been unfounded. We have not seen the wild west return to the states that have allowed people to carry concealed weapons but instead these states have experienced a steady decline in their violent crime rates.

Utah has allowed students and teachers to carry guns on college campus since 2004 and so far, amazingly, we have not had even one teacher shoot a student for missing an assignment or any wild west shootouts at the assembly hall. In recent memory Utah has only had one deranged shooter type incident (Trolly Square in 2007) and in that case the gunman was confronted by a Concealed Carry holder who stopped the gunman from killing additional people until the police arrived.

Most likely we will see the same thing in Arizona. If that state determines that this is something that will make their citizens safer and the allow people to carry guns on campus; nothing will happen. No heated arguments will turn deadly, no teachers will finally loose their cool and take it out on a classroom full of students. Instead life in AZ will continue as it always has. And next time another similar bill is offered in some other random state the exact same arguments will be made against it.

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 09:58 AM
I love when the counter argument is "you stink! Youre a poopoo head" Well done. I dont have hate. I have incredible frustration. Theres a difference.

That's not how I see it. You have disdain. You have no faith in your fellow citizens. You are jaded, discontent and generally unfulfilled. This manifests itself in hate for those who oppose your view points.

Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.

Rohirrim
03-02-2011, 10:00 AM
This is much more likely than all the law abiding gun carrying (and trained) citizens shooting each other because they can't recognize the person executing unarmed people.

Look, without guns being allowed, people die, usually dozens if not more.

Guns allowed, yes, people will still die. The point is that less will die. In a classroom, I doubt I could pull out a gun fast enough to stop a shooter from killing a few, but he sure is hell isn't going to reload or take the time to search classrooms with more to kill. It's sad that so many of you have so little confidence in a law abiding american that has passed background checks, taken classes and has signed documents promising to handle themselves and their gun in a certain way or be subject to punishment. You seem to be defending the idiots that kill people; like, oh, they were just sick in the head but completely normal law abiding citizens. They broke the law when the obtained the gun illegally, they broke the law by bringing a weapon outside of their home without a concealed weapon permit, and they broke the law when they thought and acted upon their desire to kill people.

I trust me with a gun. I just don't trust you. Or most of the people on here. ;D

JJG
03-02-2011, 10:01 AM
You dumbass, how do you prove such a thing? You rightards want to turn our universities into a labratory to test out your wacked-out, cowboy theories. Even if a person is highly trained, the LAST thing on their mind in a classroom setting is that someone is going to open fire. They are trying to process the info being taught by their professor, or they're hungover, or they're wondering if the cute girl in the short skirt two seats over was flirting before class or just being nice. To think that it is LIKELY that as soon as the bullets started flying that an individual would immediately be able to process the unexpected turn of events and calmly and rationally go into action is just stupid.

my point exactly. You can't prove your scenario is any more likely than any other scenario. Yet you hold yours out to be gospel....

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:03 AM
Every time a state talks about allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry a gun, whether it be the original concealed carry laws or this Arizona bill, the same arguments are made. That somehow placing a weapon in the hand of a responsible person is a recipe for disaster. As of yet all these concerns have been unfounded. We have not seen the wild west return to the states that have allowed people to carry concealed weapons but instead these states have experienced a steady decline in their violent crime rates.

Utah has allowed students and teachers to carry guns on college campus since 2004 and so far, amazingly, we have not had even one teacher shoot a student for missing an assignment or any wild west shootouts at the assembly hall. In recent memory Utah has only had one deranged shooter type incident (Trolly Square in 2007) and in that case the gunman was confronted by a Concealed Carry holder who stopped the gunman from killing additional people until the police arrived.

Most likely we will see the same thing in Arizona. If that state determines that this is something that will make their citizens safer and the allow people to carry guns on campus; nothing will happen. No heated arguments will turn deadly, no teachers will finally loose their cool and take it out on a classroom full of students. Instead life in AZ will continue as it always has. And next time another similar bill is offered in some other random state the exact same arguments will be made against it.

But the thing is...its not REALLY an issue ANYWHERE. If this were an everyday/every week occurance, then maybe an argument could be made. But why invite the POSSIBILITY of mistakes by encouraging the bearing of arms in an institution where its not needed?

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:05 AM
You're hopeless. You honestly think the purpose of Government is meant as some oppressive entity, when the purpose of government is to serve the people/state. This is why i cant stand when a-holes like Donald Trump say government should be run like a business. If government should be run like a business, then the first order should be murdering old people since they are the biggest strain on the economy. ITS PURPOSE IS TO SERVE THE PEOPLE.

And, by the way, not everyone is born on equal footing, as much as you republicans think thats the way it is.

Dont worry though, once the world fails, youll have your post-apocolyptic society. Start saving your cans and your guns...youre gonna need em.

Who are the people and how should they be served?

Cosmo
03-02-2011, 10:05 AM
Every time a state talks about allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry a gun, whether it be the original concealed carry laws or this Arizona bill, the same arguments are made. That somehow placing a weapon in the hand of a responsible person is a recipe for disaster. As of yet all these concerns have been unfounded. We have not seen the wild west return to the states that have allowed people to carry concealed weapons but instead these states have experienced a steady decline in their violent crime rates.

Utah has allowed students and teachers to carry guns on college campus since 2004 and so far, amazingly, we have not had even one teacher shoot a student for missing an assignment or any wild west shootouts at the assembly hall. In recent memory Utah has only had one deranged shooter type incident (Trolly Square in 2007) and in that case the gunman was confronted by a Concealed Carry holder who stopped the gunman from killing additional people until the police arrived.

Most likely we will see the same thing in Arizona. If that state determines that this is something that will make their citizens safer and the allow people to carry guns on campus; nothing will happen. No heated arguments will turn deadly, no teachers will finally loose their cool and take it out on a classroom full of students. Instead life in AZ will continue as it always has. And next time another similar bill is offered in some other random state the exact same arguments will be made against it.


Thank you for your intelligent comment that gives a real life example instead of conjecture and wild assumptions. Rep

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:07 AM
That's not how I see it. You have disdain. You have no faith in your fellow citizens. You are jaded, discontent and generally unfulfilled. This manifests itself in hate for those who oppose your view points.

Sorry, sometimes the truth hurts.

I do have faith in my fellow citizens which is why i support socialist democratic politics. But aside from that, socities, economies work best when there is a strong middle class. You keep deregulating, you keep taking away entitlements, you get more economic disparity...this causes unrest. The middle class is the spending class and if the middle class has money to spend, they will. You shrink the middle class, there is less spending.

This is simple. The most frustrating thing to me is the Stockholm Syndrome this country has for the rich. I'll never understand it. Its counter-intuitive. We are all cogs in society and all should be kept oiled. The ironic thing is you think you trust your fellow man, yet you have no interest in helping it. You are apart of the ME first culture and you dont understand it.

So educate yourself before you start calling me names and judging me.

Dedhed
03-02-2011, 10:09 AM
You have no faith in your fellow citizens.

And yet you're the one who wants guns so you can shoot your fellow citizens. Ironic?

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 10:11 AM
my point exactly. You can't prove your scenario is any more likely than any other scenario. Yet you hold yours out to be gospel....

No, I don't hold it as "gospel", I just think it is unwise to use our universities as a testing ground for cowboy theories. I think anyone thinking logically can see the danger, can see that some 21 year old kid in a classroom setting calmly and rationally taking out a crazed gunman is not very likely.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:12 AM
Who are the people and how should they be served?

Is this a trick question? The people are the citizens of the united states of America and government, an elected government, is in place to support rules/regulations that best serve the people. My personal belief is that every citizen in america should be provided a basic foundation so they have as close as an equal opportunity as anyone else in this country. For example, healthcare, education should be a right, not a priviledge. Is this pie in the sky thinking? Perhaps, though other countries do it (i understand america's size makes it debilitating) But that doesnt mean i think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

HUmans **** everything up, no matter what form of government. But its not a zero sum game either

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:13 AM
I do have faith in my fellow citizens which is why i support socialist democratic politics. But aside from that, socities, economies work best when there is a strong middle class. You keep deregulating, you keep taking away entitlements, you get more economic disparity...this causes unrest. The middle class is the spending class and if the middle class has money to spend, they will. You shrink the middle class, there is less spending.

This is simple. The most frustrating thing to me is the Stockholm Syndrome this country has for the rich. I'll never understand it. Its counter-intuitive. We are all cogs in society and all should be kept oiled. The ironic thing is you think you trust your fellow man, yet you have no interest in helping it. You are apart of the ME first culture and you dont understand it.

So educate yourself before you start calling me names and judging me.

How do you propose to resurrect the "middle class"?

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 10:15 AM
The most frustrating thing to me is the Stockholm Syndrome this country has for the rich. I'll never understand it. Its counter-intuitive.

My theory is that the "American dream" convinces people that someday they, too, will be in that stratospheric tax bracket with the richest 1%.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:16 AM
Is this a trick question? The people are the citizens of the united states of America and government, an elected government, is in place to support rules/regulations that best serve the people. My personal belief is that every citizen in america should be provided a basic foundation so they have as close as an equal opportunity as anyone else in this country. For example, healthcare, education should be a right, not a priviledge. Is this pie in the sky thinking? Perhaps, though other countries do it (i understand america's size makes it debilitating) But that doesnt mean i think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

HUmans **** everything up, no matter what form of government. But its not a zero sum game either

So the question becomes, what best serves the people?

And you're back to the endless debate aren't you, what makes you think that your solutions better serve the interest of citizens?

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:18 AM
My theory is that the "American dream" convinces people that someday they, too, will be in that stratosperic tax bracket with the richest 1%.

Except that advanced economies throughout the world, no matter their government, over an extended period of many decades have all shown a trend toward income disparity. America is not alone, its just under the microscope the most.

Generally, government redistribution of wealth only provides temporary relief.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:18 AM
How do you propose to resurrect the "middle class"?


By providing them a foundation, investing in education/innovation to create jobs, raising taxes on people who can afford them. Obviously with the global economy this becomes a lot harder (outsourcing and what not). Certainly i dont really have the answers for this and clearly no one else does either. That's one of the trickiest parts of the whole thing. We keep looking for past occurances to dictate our future, but the world is a completely diff place. but Iwill say this...the fact that virtually no corporations pay taxes in this country is pretty disgusting and would be a good place to start.

footstepsfrom#27
03-02-2011, 10:19 AM
College is a place characterized by heavy useage of alcohol. Mix immediate introduction of guns into that...a really bad idea.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:21 AM
So the question becomes, what best serves the people?

And you're back to the endless debate aren't you, what makes you think that your solutions better serve the interest of citizens?

Well of course its endless debates, but i can only support my beliefs obviously. I'm also a believer in the fact thats its virtually impossible to properly control a country of our size. You look at countries in scandinavia (that enact **** i believe in) and it works for them...obviously their countries are a lot smaller/homogeneous, but i suppose you just fight for what you believe in and compromise when it comes down to meeting the wants of everyone.

But in the absolute simplest terms, if i have to put it in a sentence, i believe the people are best served with a public foundation that shows support for fellow man. Not this every man for himself kind of philosophy.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:28 AM
By providing them a foundation, investing in education/innovation to create jobs, raising taxes on people who can afford them. Obviously with the global economy this becomes a lot harder (outsourcing and what not). Certainly i dont really have the answers for this and clearly no one else does either. That's one of the trickiest parts of the whole thing. We keep looking for past occurances to dictate our future, but the world is a completely diff place. but Iwill say this...the fact that virtually no corporations pay taxes in this country is pretty disgusting and would be a good place to start.

I doubt anyone disagrees with the ideals of improving education, driving innovation, and creating jobs.

But how?

Example: Improve education. I have read one economists' study that has determined that if you replace the bottom 10% of teachers with average quality teachers you will get a GDP increase over the projected lifespan of those students to be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Nope, not a typo. Do you still support teacher unions after reading that?

You want to drive innovation but you want to raise taxes on those who "can afford it," which also happen to be the ones best positioned to provide the innovation you seek, now they leave the US to compete against us, how do you solve that dilemma, which direction do you choose?

You say that you want to create jobs and drive innovation, but everything thats happened in the past decade has indicated that newer companies simply don't higher "middle class" americans.

Example: Ford probably had more line managers in a few plants than Facebook could higher employees in its entire existence.

How do you solve these problems? Can you? And if you can't just magically fix inequality without stunting growth, would you consider other lines of thinking?

JJG
03-02-2011, 10:28 AM
No, I don't hold it as "gospel", I just think it is unwise to use our universities as a testing ground for cowboy theories. I think anyone thinking logically can see the danger, can see that some 21 year old kid in a classroom setting calmly and rationally taking out a crazed gunman is not very likely.

The above sounds much more reasonable since you state is as your opinion vs holding it out to be some kind of universal truth.

Can you see where someone else might think something different?

Truth is, like most things in life, this issue is far more grey than the black and white scenarios being represented here.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:31 AM
Well of course its endless debates, but i can only support my beliefs obviously. I'm also a believer in the fact thats its virtually impossible to properly control a country of our size. You look at countries in scandinavia (that enact **** i believe in) and it works for them...obviously their countries are a lot smaller/homogeneous, but i suppose you just fight for what you believe in and compromise when it comes down to meeting the wants of everyone.

But in the absolute simplest terms, if i have to put it in a sentence, i believe the people are best served with a public foundation that shows support for fellow man. Not this every man for himself kind of philosophy.

But if competition drives innovation, and wealth redistribution destroys incentive for said innovation, then is the public really being best served? Or is their best chance to support an environment that encourages said innovation at the expense of "equality"?

enjolras
03-02-2011, 10:36 AM
wealth redistribution destroys incentive for said innovation

That's just not true.

BroncoInferno
03-02-2011, 10:37 AM
The above sounds much more reasonable since you state is as your opinion vs holding it out to be some kind of universal truth.

Can you see where someone else might think something different?

Truth is, like most things in life, this issue is far more grey than the black and white scenarios being represented here.

My point is the solution isn't to say "hey, let's test out arming a bunch of 21 year olds and see if that solves the problem."

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:39 AM
But if competition drives innovation, and wealth redistribution destroys incentive for said innovation, then is the public really being best served? Or is their best chance to support an environment that encourages said innovation at the expense of "equality"?

Yeah, i dont buy that wealth distribution destroys incentive for innovation because i dont think innovators, outside of wall street, are completely driven by money. Plus, America existed and innovated with higher tax rates and a stronger middle class for YEARS before 1980.

Now, the trick is how to handle this in the global economy and if theres a way to keep American companies in america and not move all their bases overseas. Now, my guess is there is a common ground and a happy medium to be had here...but, as you well know, most people have no real interest in finding it and get defensive and entrenched before the conversation even starts.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:39 AM
That's just not true.

Taken to the extreme it does, at the very least, it discourages it.

Certainly, people won't run harder as the carrot at the end of the stick grows smaller.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:43 AM
Taken to the extreme it does, at the very least, it discourages it.

Certainly, people won't run harder as the carrot at the end of the stick grows smaller.

But the carrot on the end of the stick is still pretty big with an increase in your tax rate. Im not suggesting we go back to the 95 percent after 400k, but i dont think putting it back in the 40's on the upper 1 percent would kill us. Then again, we let the genie out of that bottle long ago and the people it will "effect" will cross their arms, pout, and threaten.

What really needs to happen is for aliens to attack so we all have reason to sacrifice. And im only half kidding

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:43 AM
Yeah, i dont buy that wealth distribution destroys incentive for innovation because i dont think innovators, outside of wall street, are completely driven by money. Plus, America existed and innovated with higher tax rates and a stronger middle class for YEARS before 1980.

Now, the trick is how to handle this in the global economy and if theres a way to keep American companies in america and not move all their bases overseas. Now, my guess is there is a common ground and a happy medium to be had here...but, as you well know, most people have no real interest in finding it and get defensive and entrenched before the conversation even starts.

Perhaps those people believe that we are past the happy medium with respect to taxation.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 10:45 AM
But the carrot on the end of the stick is still pretty big with an increase in your tax rate. Im not suggesting we go back to the 95 percent after 400k, but i dont think putting it back in the 40's on the upper 1 percent would kill us. Then again, we let the genie out of that bottle long ago and the people it will "effect" will cross their arms, pout, and threaten.

What really needs to happen is for aliens to attack so we all have reason to sacrifice. And im only half kidding

So the question is then, whats a better choice, cutting down on the incentive to work slightly, or cutting down on government spending the equal amount to achieve a similar end?

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:49 AM
Perhaps those people believe that we are past the happy medium with respect to taxation.

But this is absurd. The bush tax cuts were long seen by many economists as the conversative/trickle down agenda run amok. The economy hasn't improved since (clearly) except for the very rich. The republican side of the government has not been willing to compromise on tax rates, they want nothing to change. So i dont see how this is a happy medium. This is not compromise at all

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 10:50 AM
So the question is then, whats a better choice, cutting down on the incentive to work slightly, or cutting down on government spending the equal amount to achieve a similar end?

What would cutting government spending in this case achieve exactly? (im asking because i dont understand what youre implying...not as a rhetorical question)

ColoradoDarin
03-02-2011, 10:57 AM
Every time a state talks about allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry a gun, whether it be the original concealed carry laws or this Arizona bill, the same arguments are made. That somehow placing a weapon in the hand of a responsible person is a recipe for disaster. As of yet all these concerns have been unfounded. We have not seen the wild west return to the states that have allowed people to carry concealed weapons but instead these states have experienced a steady decline in their violent crime rates.

Utah has allowed students and teachers to carry guns on college campus since 2004 and so far, amazingly, we have not had even one teacher shoot a student for missing an assignment or any wild west shootouts at the assembly hall. In recent memory Utah has only had one deranged shooter type incident (Trolly Square in 2007) and in that case the gunman was confronted by a Concealed Carry holder who stopped the gunman from killing additional people until the police arrived.

Most likely we will see the same thing in Arizona. If that state determines that this is something that will make their citizens safer and the allow people to carry guns on campus; nothing will happen. No heated arguments will turn deadly, no teachers will finally loose their cool and take it out on a classroom full of students. Instead life in AZ will continue as it always has. And next time another similar bill is offered in some other random state the exact same arguments will be made against it.

Thank you for being the only person to bring actual facts into the discussion. As I said above, the level of ignorance is high.

broncocalijohn
03-02-2011, 11:01 AM
What do you mean? You live in Cali!

California--the joke of the nation and the bad liberal experiement that continues to spiral into the abyss.

I'm not suprised by your disgust. You've been brain washed by the liberal left. This is the state that embodies post modernism and leads the US in crime, and in illegal imigration, and in budget deficit.

Congrats Cali, you've failed again.

:thumbs::rofl::thumbs:

Dont remind me on that. But just in case you didnt know, we are one of the worst in business climate (D.C. ranks higher than us!) and highest taxes for people not ultra rich (I think NJ or NY has that title for Donald Trump).
But hey! We got great weather and will be taxed on that probably by 2013.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 11:03 AM
What would cutting government spending in this case achieve exactly? (im asking because i dont understand what youre implying...not as a rhetorical question)

I'm sure you have programs in mind, to fund them, why not reduce waste and cut spending to find that money, how are the draw backs any worse than adjusting taxes?

Missouribronc
03-02-2011, 11:04 AM
My point is the solution isn't to say "hey, let's test out arming a bunch of 21 year olds and see if that solves the problem."

No one is suggesting they approach random 21 year olds and present them with a shiny new gun, and say 'take care of the campus for us.'

They are allowing conceal and carry on campus. In order to get a conceal and carry license there are some pretty strict regulations that you must follow, which includes a lot of training, (at least in my state there are) before you are issued the conceal and carry.

The idea is to ALLOW TRAINED individuals who WANT to carry a gun the ability to do so. Currently, the only people allowed on campuses with guns are bi-polar, delusional individuals who set out to kill people and then themselves.

Also, one thing to note about the VT shooter... (has nothing to do with above quoted statement, just a random thought). Psych evaluations should also be a part of the conceal and carry process, imo.

OABB
03-02-2011, 11:05 AM
I say you let the rich keep their money! Than it will trickle down to us. Duh.

I mean it worked under saint Reagan! Our economy was awesome then! No debt. No outsourcing. Good competition with derugulation. Monopoly galore! Y
chocolate streams and rainbow skies!

broncocalijohn
03-02-2011, 11:05 AM
My point is the solution isn't to say "hey, let's test out arming a bunch of 21 year olds and see if that solves the problem."

You actually think a bunch of 21 year olds is going to qualify for a concealed gun permit? That permit isnt just for the campus but everyday life. Some of you guys are just thinking of extreme measures to make a point......even if it has no valid reasoning behind it.

Rohirrim
03-02-2011, 11:07 AM
I say you let the rich keep their money! Than it will trickle down to us. Duh.

I mean it worked under saint Reagan! Our economy was awesome then! No debt. No outsourcing. Good competition with derugulation. Monopoly galore! Y
chocolate streams and rainbow skies!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_z3k2r7siOJA/S9FesR3ndpI/AAAAAAAAANE/DfBfaGwbDHo/s1600/Reaganomics_Trickle_Down.jpg

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 11:07 AM
I'm sure you have programs in mind, to fund them, why not reduce waste and cut spending to find that money, how are the draw backs any worse than adjusting taxes?

Oh i think there should be a healthy dose of both.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 11:08 AM
But this is absurd. The bush tax cuts were long seen by many economists as the conversative/trickle down agenda run amok. The economy hasn't improved since (clearly) except for the very rich. The republican side of the government has not been willing to compromise on tax rates, they want nothing to change. So i dont see how this is a happy medium. This is not compromise at all

Economy has not gotten better since those tax cuts, but how can we say from that point, that the particular action of cutting taxes doesn't positively affect the economy?

Analogy - a much simpler system (arguably), football - you draft Ryan Clady, but you have multiple losing seasons after, does that point to the pick being poorly used?

i think you get what I mean, we should avoid those types of arguments.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 11:11 AM
Oh i think there should be a healthy dose of both.

So you're saying cutting spending is not enough, you want to raise taxes still?

So then do you feel that the programs you are thinking of funding are more valuable to public interests than the added incentive to productivity of lower taxes, and why?

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 11:13 AM
Economy has not gotten better since those tax cuts, but how can we say from that point, that the particular action of cutting taxes doesn't positively affect the economy?

Analogy - a much simpler system (arguably), football - you draft Ryan Clady, but you have multiple losing seasons after, does that point to the pick being poorly used?

i think you get what I mean, we should avoid those types of arguments.

Obviously the economy balances on more than just tax rates, but our rollercoaster economy did start once the taxes started being slashed, so this cannot be ignored. Obviously, deregulation (which came hand-inhand with this) has certainly done its part in ****ing over the economy (look no further than Wall Street which has gotten away with murder. its funny that people blame the wisconsin pensions for their woes, yet really it was wall street ****ing them over in this case). The idea of the lower tax rate was so that the money will trickle down through spending. Except 1) this never happened and it was foolish to ever think it would. Rich people like to stay rich and horde money...this is not exactly a secret. The entire tax code needs to be redone, to get rid of loopholes, etc etc...but yeah, they can afford to give more than they do.

bendog
03-02-2011, 11:13 AM
It is productive to cut teachers so taxes can be lowered for those making the most.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 11:16 AM
So you're saying cutting spending is not enough, you want to raise taxes still?

So then do you feel that the programs you are thinking of funding are more valuable to public interests than the added incentive to productivity of lower taxes, and why?

Because, as mentioned before, the purpose of government is to ensure the good health/well being of society, not as a money making business venture. There are certain things the government can implement to ensure that every american has a base (like healthcare/right to education). The incentive of the lower tax rate has just funneled money upwards and has shrunk the middle class, therefore not allowing people to take advantage of these rights. I honestly think we can have our cake and eat it too...well close to it.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 11:19 AM
Obviously the economy balances on more than just tax rates, but our rollercoaster economy did start once the taxes started being slashed, so this cannot be ignored. Obviously, deregulation (which came hand-inhand with this) has certainly done its part in ****ing over the economy (look no further than Wall Street which has gotten away with murder. its funny that people blame the wisconsin pensions for their woes, yet really it was wall street ****ing them over in this case). The idea of the lower tax rate was so that the money will trickle down through spending. Except 1) this never happened and it was foolish to ever think it would. Rich people like to stay rich and horde money...this is not exactly a secret. The entire tax code needs to be redone, to get rid of loopholes, etc etc...but yeah, they can afford to give more than they do.

Personally, I don't believe in the idea of "trickle down economics," i think its a farce. This is because not every industry will grow evenly and some industry will only compete harder for top talent.

However, I do feel that financial incentive drives productivity and innovation. In turn i believe innovation in the long run produces quality of life improvements for everyone.

As for the tax rate issue: correlation != causation

As for your take on Wall Street, I have the opposite view, I think government policy decisions provided poor incentives that lead to some fairly reckless decision making.

WIldbill
03-02-2011, 11:20 AM
But the thing is...its not REALLY an issue ANYWHERE. If this were an everyday/every week occurance, then maybe an argument could be made. But why invite the POSSIBILITY of mistakes by encouraging the bearing of arms in an institution where its not needed?

I agree with you that mass shootings are not an everyday/ every week occurrence. But they do occur. On the other hand there is a possibility of a someone making a mistake and accidentally shooting a innocent person but again this is a very rare event and as likely or less likely to happen than a mass shooting. So which low risk chance to you take. From a collective point of view I'd rather take the slight chance of an accident (usually there are not mass accidental shootings) rather than the risk of a homicidal person running through an unarmed location for several minutes with no chance of resistance. From a individual rights point of view; I believe every person is responsible for their own safety and as such should be allowed the tools to provide that protection. Our country/society was based strongly upon individual liberty and rights. With each of these rights there are risks and rewards. The standard for denying a right is not "Well you really don't need it" but "In exercising this right you destroy the rights of others." In this case there is not any viable evidence that allowing responsible citizens to carry guns destroys the rights of others that is not offset tenfold by the evidence that it actually improves the rights of others.

Secondly to those who have argued that allowing guns at a collage due to alcohol and guns being a bad combo... This bill would allow students to carry guns on the university campus. Typically students are not having huge Keggers during Chemistry but rather after school at their residence. In most cases they are already allowed to have a gun/ carry a gun at their residence so I don't see where that argument applies.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 11:20 AM
Because, as mentioned before, the purpose of government is to ensure the good health/well being of society, not as a money making business venture. There are certain things the government can implement to ensure that every american has a base (like healthcare/right to education). The incentive of the lower tax rate has just funneled money upwards and has shrunk the middle class, therefore not allowing people to take advantage of these rights. I honestly think we can have our cake and eat it too...well close to it.

We already spend quite a lot on education. Healthcare accounts for nearly 20% of our GDP, are you sure the problem can be solved with injecting money?

Look at the studying environment of a college campus decades ago, and look at it today. Does state of the art gyms and gorgeous campuses at these schools add to GDP output? to learning? Tax dollars are supporting the loans to keep those institutions running with such luxuries for its students, I wonder if all that money is properly translating to actual education?

jhns
03-02-2011, 11:21 AM
You actually think a bunch of 21 year olds is going to qualify for a concealed gun permit? That permit isnt just for the campus but everyday life. Some of you guys are just thinking of extreme measures to make a point......even if it has no valid reasoning behind it.

Yup, these 21 year olds can already get these permits. They just cant carry on campus now. It is weird that people think allowing guns in one more place is what will get so many more people to go get a gun. They already have them if they want them...

jhns
03-02-2011, 11:26 AM
An easy solution to this would be for everyone in favor of guns to just shoot those that dont want them. Sounds reasonable to me.

JJG
03-02-2011, 11:26 AM
My point is the solution isn't to say "hey, let's test out arming a bunch of 21 year olds and see if that solves the problem."

Thats not the solution being presented. They are not handing out a 9mm with your student handbook

bendog
03-02-2011, 11:29 AM
We already spend quite a lot on education. Healthcare accounts for nearly 20% of our GDP, are you sure the problem can be solved with injecting money?

Look at the studying environment of a college campus decades ago, and look at it today. Does state of the art gyms and gorgeous campuses at these schools add to GDP output? to learning? Tax dollars are supporting the loans to keep those institutions running with such luxuries for its students, I wonder if all that money is properly translating to actual education?

Are you seriously attempting to say that higher educ is publically funded at the same rate of gnp that is was in 1980? If so, you need to learn to use google.

If you want to say that govt spending needs to be cut, that's fine. Many would agree, including me. But what occurred in NJ, and what's occuring in WI, is govt reducing the amt of gnp going to all educ while at the same time cutting taxes at the top income rates.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 11:30 AM
Personally, I don't believe in the idea of "trickle down economics," i think its a farce. This is because not every industry will grow evenly and some industry will only compete harder for top talent.

However, I do feel that financial incentive drives productivity and innovation. In turn i believe innovation in the long run produces quality of life improvements for everyone.

As for the tax rate issue: correlation != causation

As for your take on Wall Street, I have the opposite view, I think government policy decisions provided poor incentives that lead to some fairly reckless decision making.

I think the lure of making even more money guides wall street, not really poor incentives. We deregulated quite a bit over the past 20 years (like glass-stegall) and it really allowed these snakes to run amok. Give greedy people more rope, and they will use it.

We do spend a lot in education and healthcare and no, i dont think simply injecting money into failing systems will help. The healthcare system needs a complete overhaul and, though i think the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction, i think America missed its opportunity for acceptable healthcare when they couldnt come to an agreement during Nixon's term. We've crossed the point of no return on it. Unless doctors suddenly want to stop making so much money and insurance companies want to completely cave, i dont see how we are going to sufficiently reel in costs. But who knows, its a work in progress. If we could start fresh, i think emulating what France does would probably work well, its the best of both worlds.

As far as education is concerned, i think America needs a culture change in this arena, but i strongly feel public pre-k is a good start. As far as if classrooms should be bigger/small/how to handle bad teachers, etc...its ignoring the elephant in the room. I think if you start teaching children from go, the idea of school is ingrained in them from a young age, so they simply become used to it. Obviously, fixing crumbling infrastructure would help, providing children healthy school food would improve a students ability to function. Its a huge ****ing mess and im not sure how to fix it without razing the entire system (probably goes for healthcare too). That said, i dont think we should simply ignore it either. I dunno, its tough.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 11:35 AM
Are you seriously attempting to say that higher educ is publically funded at the same rate of gnp that is was in 1980? If so, you need to learn to use google.

If you want to say that govt spending needs to be cut, that's fine. Many would agree, including me. But what occurred in NJ, and what's occuring in WI, is govt reducing the amt of gnp going to all educ while at the same time cutting taxes at the top income rates.

Clearly, thats not what I said, nor is it what I am implying.

What I am implying is that amount being spent does not seem to be the issue with education. I wonder what American spending per pupil is compared to the rest of the world. . . combined.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 11:45 AM
I think the lure of making even more money guides wall street, not really poor incentives. We deregulated quite a bit over the past 20 years (like glass-stegall) and it really allowed these snakes to run amok. Give greedy people more rope, and they will use it.

We do spend a lot in education and healthcare and no, i dont think simply injecting money into failing systems will help. The healthcare system needs a complete overhaul and, though i think the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction, i think America missed its opportunity for acceptable healthcare when they couldnt come to an agreement during Nixon's term. We've crossed the point of no return on it. Unless doctors suddenly want to stop making so much money and insurance companies want to completely cave, i dont see how we are going to sufficiently reel in costs. But who knows, its a work in progress. If we could start fresh, i think emulating what France does would probably work well, its the best of both worlds.

As far as education is concerned, i think America needs a culture change in this arena, but i strongly feel public pre-k is a good start. As far as if classrooms should be bigger/small/how to handle bad teachers, etc...its ignoring the elephant in the room. I think if you start teaching children from go, the idea of school is ingrained in them from a young age, so they simply become used to it. Obviously, fixing crumbling infrastructure would help, providing children healthy school food would improve a students ability to function. Its a huge ****ing mess and im not sure how to fix it without razing the entire system (probably goes for healthcare too). That said, i dont think we should simply ignore it either. I dunno, its tough.


Its not about more regulation or less regulation when it comes to the economy, its about proper regulation and efficient regulation. The improper incentives I'm talking about relate more to the GSEs.

Also, I have a question, do you believe government should be subject to similar standards of transparency in their accounting practices as businesses?

On healthcare, no clue, just hope one day they find a sustainable solution.

On education: I think there should be a way to reward great teachers and punish poor ones, I think partially privatizing that segment is something to think about.

bendog
03-02-2011, 11:47 AM
Clearly, thats not what I said, nor is it what I am implying.

What I am implying is that amount being spent does not seem to be the issue with education. I wonder what American spending per pupil is compared to the rest of the world. . . combined.

OK, sorry for the snarkiness, but you did post, "Look at the studying environment of a college campus decades ago, and look at it today. Does state of the art gyms and gorgeous campuses at these schools add to GDP output? " So, it looked that way to me.

If you measure educ spending by gnp, the US is pretty low, but if you measure in dollars, we're like no 3, and that's probably a more honest measure since we have more dollars per student than places like cuba to spend.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

I just don't buy the arguments in NJ and now WI to raise the number of kids in classrooms and cut university spending WHILE enacting a tax cut that gives more money to the more affluent than to those less able to self-fund educ.

But despite the dishonesty of these two governors (and there's dishonesty on the unions sides too), it's so obvious that I won't even bother looking that places like India, China and Brazil/Argentina are seding their best and brightest to study at US universities. So, is spending on public schools and aid to universities helpful to gnp ... well, ask bill gates

Still, if you want to cut spending, have at it. What's happening in NJ will be counter productive over the long run, though frankly in Newark it probably doesn't matter what they spend.

As for guns ... red herring wedge issue.

Houshyamama
03-02-2011, 11:56 AM
i really need to move out of this country

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Houshyamama
03-02-2011, 11:58 AM
Thanks semantics police

Semantics police? Do you even know what semantics means?

:rofl:

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 12:51 PM
OK, sorry for the snarkiness, but you did post, "Look at the studying environment of a college campus decades ago, and look at it today. Does state of the art gyms and gorgeous campuses at these schools add to GDP output? " So, it looked that way to me.

If you measure educ spending by gnp, the US is pretty low, but if you measure in dollars, we're like no 3, and that's probably a more honest measure since we have more dollars per student than places like cuba to spend.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

I just don't buy the arguments in NJ and now WI to raise the number of kids in classrooms and cut university spending WHILE enacting a tax cut that gives more money to the more affluent than to those less able to self-fund educ.

But despite the dishonesty of these two governors (and there's dishonesty on the unions sides too), it's so obvious that I won't even bother looking that places like India, China and Brazil/Argentina are seding their best and brightest to study at US universities. So, is spending on public schools and aid to universities helpful to gnp ... well, ask bill gates

Still, if you want to cut spending, have at it. What's happening in NJ will be counter productive over the long run, though frankly in Newark it probably doesn't matter what they spend.

As for guns ... red herring wedge issue.

I am trying to make two separate points. 1.) I think the government is way too large and active today (why I want to see a reduction in spending), 2.) separately, I doubt increasing spending will do all that much for our education system.

However, I'm not trying to say that the current %GNP spent on education is adequate. I'm of the belief that you really can't spend too much on education as long as the spending is efficient. As of right now, its not.

You mention US universities, and how sought after a position in them is, but they are private corporations. On the other hand, American k-12 education produces kids that are having trouble competing in quantifiable areas such as standardized test scores. (i'd also like to note that your list was for secondary education, which only covers the last 4 years of public education).

If US universities are doing well, and public education so poorly, isn't that significant evidence that the area needs privatization?

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 01:12 PM
Its not about more regulation or less regulation when it comes to the economy, its about proper regulation and efficient regulation. The improper incentives I'm talking about relate more to the GSEs.

Also, I have a question, do you believe government should be subject to similar standards of transparency in their accounting practices as businesses?

On healthcare, no clue, just hope one day they find a sustainable solution.

On education: I think there should be a way to reward great teachers and punish poor ones, I think partially privatizing that segment is something to think about.

Of course I think the government should be transparent. They are shephards of the people. That said, they clearly cannot only be puppets because i think, generally, people arent interested (educated enough) on the worlds issues to properly deal with them. But people do have the right to know whats going on. But even if government were totally transparant, i doubt anyone would know the diff. Its not like C-SPAN gets great ratings.

I was actually reading an artcile ( i think it was in the times today) re: rewarding teachers. Thats a slippery slope unless you were strictly rewarding teachers based on some kind of standardized test score, but even that is unfair.

Re: government regulations of the markets, im not all that interested in boom/bust economics. Just give me something as safe as possible. What happened during the crisis with securitization, etc is simply criminal.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 01:16 PM
Semantics police? Do you even know what semantics means?

:rofl:

Uh, he was twisting the meaning of his original post

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 01:17 PM
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Trust me, i wont

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 01:18 PM
I am trying to make two separate points. 1.) I think the government is way too large and active today (why I want to see a reduction in spending), 2.) separately, I doubt increasing spending will do all that much for our education system.

However, I'm not trying to say that the current %GNP spent on education is adequate. I'm of the belief that you really can't spend too much on education as long as the spending is efficient. As of right now, its not.

You mention US universities, and how sought after a position in them is, but they are private corporations. On the other hand, American k-12 education produces kids that are having trouble competing in quantifiable areas such as standardized test scores. (i'd also like to note that your list was for secondary education, which only covers the last 4 years of public education).

If US universities are doing well, and public education so poorly, isn't that significant evidence that the area needs privatization?

But not all colleges are privately owned?

Tombstone RJ
03-02-2011, 01:21 PM
Of course I think the government should be transparent. They are shephards of the people. That said, they clearly cannot only be puppets because i think, generally, people arent interested (educated enough) on the worlds issues to properly deal with them. But people do have the right to know whats going on. But even if government were totally transparant, i doubt anyone would know the diff. Its not like C-SPAN gets great ratings.

I was actually reading an artcile ( i think it was in the times today) re: rewarding teachers. Thats a slippery slope unless you were strictly rewarding teachers based on some kind of standardized test score, but even that is unfair.

Re: government regulations of the markets, im not all that interested in boom/bust economics. Just give me something as safe as possible. What happened during the crisis with securitization, etc is simply criminal.


You are seriously delusional. The fuggen government is not the shepherd of the people. Where do you get this stuff?

The government serves the people. Period. It does not shepherd the people, it does not lead the people, it does not provide for the people, it does not guide the people.

Ever heard of this: OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

If anything, it's the people who shepherd the government.

DarkHorse30
03-02-2011, 01:29 PM
By providing them a foundation, investing in education/innovation to create jobs, raising taxes on people who can afford them.

Can we raise their taxes enough to force them out of the country? If Trump wants to move, who is going to tell him no?

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 01:32 PM
You are seriously delusional. The fuggen government is not the shepherd of the people. Where do you get this stuff?

The government serves the people. Period. It does not shepherd the people, it does not lead the people, it does not provide for the people, it does not guide the people.

Ever heard of this: OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

If anything, it's the people who shepherd the government.

Whoops, i misspoke while i was multitasking. The government does in fact serve the people. On this we agree.

Willynowei
03-02-2011, 01:34 PM
to le-lolang on both your posts.

on Universities: most of the top ones that people are transferring to are private, and comparing K-12 to universities, the college level has a lot more private involvement.

on transparency: doesn't the bridge to no where make you want the government to be more accountable with its spending?

on the economy: I am a conservative policy proponent mainly because so many of the things that our government does that are well intentioned (government secured and subsidized agencies aimed at improving the state of home ownership) leads to serious backlashes (CDOs/CMOs and their contribution to the credit contraction crisis).

In other words, you say you want a sustainable economy, but I'm saying that it's precisely well intentioned subsidies and government agencies directing economic incentive artificially that creates a lot of these unwanted fluctuations.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 01:34 PM
Can we raise their taxes enough to force them out of the country? If Trump wants to move, who is going to tell him no?

Well, as said, there's the rub since we now live in a global economy. I really dont think many know what to do at this point unless sacrifice was in order.

So bring on the alien attack, its probably our only answer.

Also, America should get used to the fact that it will no longer be the world's superpower, and this is OK! But it would be a blow to "american exceptionalism" and lots of americans dont like that too much

bendog
03-02-2011, 01:40 PM
I am trying to make two separate points. 1.) I think the government is way too large and active today (why I want to see a reduction in spending), 2.) separately, I doubt increasing spending will do all that much for our education system.

....

If US universities are doing well, and public education so poorly, isn't that significant evidence that the area needs privatization?

I agree with your first point that the federal govt is too large. How you tackle that ... i'm not really so sure. One one hand we have spouses and kids of dead or disabled workers who have whatever state workers comp benefits they get supplemented by soc sec, and there's no way a working stiff in a two workder family making 75k can afford much in the way of life insurance ... I just don't see the econ or social argument to cut benefits. 401ks are so underwater that soc sec is a cruel joke, though upping the retirement age is probably inevitable. I'd certainly agree that medicare and employee insurance needs to be moved to some system whereby people prioritize what they get, but at the same time it's very affordable to get wellness care. Germany and Poland do it, and spend less than we do. What I'm trying to say is that I'm sympathetic to the teaparty, but I fear they vote on more emotion than outcomes.

Although, I think overall, the only way to get at it is to simply freeze spending, which is pretty much what Graham Rudman ended up accomplishing in the late 80s and early 90s. But reforming a system is hard.

I differ on US universties being private corps. Some are ... sort of. But the U of Wisc is state supported, and one of the higher rated universities in that region. Medical research is at teaching hospitals, which are almost always publically funded. Cal Poly, public. UVA, public. However, I think you may be trying to differentiate between aide to students who have a choice in which higher educ school to attend, be it public or private AND the public school system of primary and secondary educ.

Your handle says you're in NJ, and I really have little knowldege of that state ... beyond Newark being dysfunctional. But even where I am in the deep South public school kids go to state supported law, md, pharmacy, accounting, vet, etc programs here, and they're fine. Inner city and very poor Mississippi Delta areas ... well, those kids have much less opportunity, and yeah they have much less choice as to where to go.

It's a Den board, and I think Den's done a good job with urban education by using "choice" to let parents essentially bid on which school they want. NYC is much the same. So, I wouldn't agree that public educ is doing such a bad job. Any kid in Colo should have a more that good chance to get into one of the state universities. And nationally, it seems to me that most polls show people say public educ fails, but oddly they're happy with their kids' schools.

But sure, Utah puts in a lot less money per kid and gets better outcomes than Newark. We all know why. It's the parents. However, I'll certainly agree that public school teachers unions/associations in places like New Orleans are counterproductive in getting teachers who can effectively teach. These young women don't really fit the mold. http://nashvilledominican.org/

ps, and the other major urban area that's been a battle ground for reforming public K-12 is chicago with Arne Duncan and before that Paul Vallas (who saved NOLA schools after Katrina)

SonOfLe-loLang
03-02-2011, 01:41 PM
to le-lolang on both your posts.

on Universities: most of the top ones that people are transferring to are private, and comparing K-12 to universities, the college level has a lot more private involvement.

on transparency: doesn't the bridge to no where make you want the government to be more accountable with its spending?

on the economy: I am a conservative policy proponent mainly because so many of the things that our government does that are well intentioned (government secured and subsidized agencies aimed at improving the state of home ownership) leads to serious backlashes (CDOs/CMOs and their contribution to the credit contraction crisis).

In other words, you say you want a sustainable economy, but I'm saying that it's precisely well intentioned subsidies and government agencies directing economic incentive artificially that creates a lot of these unwanted fluctuations.

I think we agree that government regulations arent exactly the right ones, but that doesnt mean government regulation is a bad ting (but i think we agree on this too). Take regulation out of the equations and the markets certainly wont start governing themselves. I think a lot of government subsidies (especially farm) are misplaced. Let me be clear im speaking from an idealistic standpoint here: though i obviously lean left, im not exactly supporting all the democrats plans, trust me i learn far left of them too. But, and we know this is true, the American economy, which was pretty strictly regulated with a strong middle class didnt fluctuate too much from the depression till 1980s. The deregulation/lower taxes/current phil has done a lot to create bubbles and the rollercoaster. That said, the world has also changed..**** if i know the answer, i can only stick to my ideals.

re: colleges. I dont think we disagree, but in general, have you seen the cost of these completely private institutions? My alma mater now costs 60k a year to go to. 60k! Public institutions, while expensive, dont cost nearly as much. The american education system is all out of whack, but completely privitizing it isnt the answer either. This also becomes a socio economic thing, in well to do areas, the public education is quite nice.

Government spending: sure it should be held accountible, i dont think i said it shouldnt be. I'm just not afraid of government spending is all

orinjkrush
03-02-2011, 03:43 PM
no law shall abridge our right to bear arms. period.

everybody should pack.

all the time.

watch what happens to crime. it may not go up as you expect.

That One Guy
03-02-2011, 03:55 PM
I went through more training than anyone in a college environment could ever imagine yet the first time gunfire kicked off for real, I spent a second or two thinking "wow, those are tracers!" before it clicked to hit the ground.

I envision this happening two ways. 1, the guy makes a big spectacle out of pulling a gun on the class so everyone's brain processes what is happening long before the first shots are fired and the confusion about who the shooter is never materializes.

2, the guy surprises the class with the shots and everyone freezes in shock while they figure out what's happening. Then, finally, someone will break the shot by screaming or yelling "he's got a gun!" and then everyone will hit the floor. In this scenario, the initial panic will be long over before anyone's gun is pulled and the benefit will be in simply preventing the guy walking around campus and finding new targets.

Either way there's not going to be any quick draw shootouts happening. Not a chance. And for the person who said a shootout involves blind shooting, that's the gangster shootout that you're going to avoid by having everyone with a gun complete the CC class. Getting the CC permit is no quick trip to Wal-mart so there's a level of maturity and responsibility shown in simply getting the permit and passing the course. I will take the CC certified individual over a maniac with a gun any day.

In the end, the thought that SOMEBODY could have a gun will be in the back of a shooter's mind as much as anything. The worst thing you could do is make it faculty only allowed to carry because any faculty would just instantly be the first target. Not knowing will be its own obstacle.

Bronco Yoda
03-03-2011, 05:30 AM
Woooo-Hoooo

Finally a good reason to go back to school and get another degree. I'm think my 357 revolver, with a new leather holster & belt with matching spurs.

Would a two-gun one on each hip be over the top?

Do they sell spurs for loafers?

Bronco Yoda
03-03-2011, 06:28 AM
Don't forget your school supplies :)
http://www.bulletblocker.com/index.html

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-98642741707334_2147_5541851
Survival Shield Pack & Safety Kit Bullet Proof Safety

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-98642741707334_2147_2954059
threat level 3 bullet proof notebook

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-98642741707334_2147_2109427
Bullet proof denim jacket

That One Guy
03-03-2011, 07:21 AM
Don't forget your school supplies :)
http://www.bulletblocker.com/index.html

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-98642741707334_2147_5541851
Survival Shield Pack & Safety Kit Bullet Proof Safety

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-98642741707334_2147_2954059
threat level 3 bullet proof notebook

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-98642741707334_2147_2109427
Bullet proof denim jacket

Those have been mandatory for the last 10 years

Garcia Bronco
03-03-2011, 08:10 AM
So one isolated incident proves we should arm entire campuses? Americans are so reactionary.

Isolated? lol. Not everyone would DECIDE to carry a firearm. Point is that the wackos in the world can't be sure. An armed society is a polite society.

OABB
03-03-2011, 08:11 AM
I'm all for this. I just think anyone on antidepressants should not be allowed to carry. Otherwise bring it on.

jhns
03-03-2011, 08:31 AM
Would a two-gun one on each hip be over the top?


Nope. Your post made me look to see if there is a limit on the number of guns you can carry and there isn't a limit in most states. I say you get shoulder and ankle holsters so you can Rambo it up with 9 or 10 guns.

OABB
03-03-2011, 08:33 AM
Nope. Your post made me look to see if there is a limit on the number of guns you can carry and there isn't a limit in most states. I say you get shoulder and ankle holsters so you can Rambo it up with 9 or 10 guns.

Live for nothing, or die for something!

broncocalijohn
03-03-2011, 12:08 PM
I'm all for this. I just think anyone on antidepressants should not be allowed to carry. Otherwise bring it on.

Dont forget those on Ambien with schools that have basements. Recipe for disaster.

Bronco Vixen
03-10-2011, 10:33 PM
oh boy, I don't know about this - coming from someone on the front lines.

I don't trust 85% of those slack jawed open mouth breathers with a #2 pencil much less a gat.

Now letting ME pack? - entirely different story.
"I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention to your mealymouthed inquiry for yet another "extension," I was too busy polishing my 9."
(Said as I bad-assedly draw it from my bag, aiming it side arm for effect - obviously).

Such an OG I am.