DOJ Gave Newtown CT Grant to Hire Officer - Obama Cancells

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 



I agree that protection of the children is called for, but not growing the police state. This is where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

Texas had the right idea: Arm the damn teachers....


Problem with that idea... should the teachers also be paid a second salary for being armed guards? We pay armed security to be armed security, we pay teachers to teach. We don't expect armed security officers to teach math or drama class - so why should teachers be expected to be armed guards? Let's face it, someone engrossed in teaching a classroom full of kids isn't exactly able to defend the perimeter of the school.

We've already turned schools into 'pipelines to prison', I guess arming the teachers like prison wardens is the next level we take it to? Get the kids used to the police-state mentality - "okay class, line up for the cavity search..." Another consideration, and something prison's learned the hard way, it NOT to arm the guards in direct contact with inmates - they're too easily overpowered, then their weapons end up in the wrong hands. Seriously, the only guards armed in a prison are the ones up in the towers.




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
I agree that protection of the children is called for, but not growing the police state. This is where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

Texas had the right idea: Arm the damn teachers....

edit on 12/25/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)


I agree with you!

To those who claim I was calling for armed guards I am not I would prefer armed teachers and staff and the communists in government removed. This thread was aimed at pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of the elite and their exploitation of this tragedy for their own political and pernicious agenda to subvert the freedom and rights of the American people!

edit on 25-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by forgetmenot
reply to post by hawkiye
 

It's poor form to accuse someone who has just been through a tragedy like this of shedding fake tears. You have absolutely zero proof of such nonsense. Plenty of people have cried over this and not just the victims families. Accusing any of hem of faking it amounts to little more than intellectual dishonesty.
edit on 25-12-2012 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)


I did not accuse anyone who has been through the tragedy of shedding fake tears. I was referring to Obama and his pretended crying. If you will note in context I was speaking of the elites when I mentioned fake tears. It is a fact and on video that he had no tears and was pretending to wipe tears that were not there. But nice try at trying to derail the discussion.

edit on 25-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Suppose they were paid extra for being armed guards? It's better than having a police presence in and around the school. Even kids can understand the difference.

People--including teachers--are taught gun safety and responsibility every day. All the problems everyone wants to bring up are merely technical details. Even teachers are capable of understanding the underlying difference between protecting their charges and becoming armed wardens.

If you were being facetious, you should have added some LOL emoticons....



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by forgetmenot
reply to post by hawkiye
 

It's poor form to accuse someone who has just been through a tragedy like this of shedding fake tears. You have absolutely zero proof of such nonsense. Plenty of people have cried over this and not just the victims families. Accusing any of hem of faking it amounts to little more than intellectual dishonesty.
edit on 25-12-2012 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)


I did not accuse anyone who has been through the tragedy of shedding fake tears. I was referring to Obama and his pretended crying. If you will note in context I was speaking of the elites when I mentioned fake tears. It is a fact and on video that he had no tears and was pretending to wipe tears that were not there. But nice try at trying to derail the discussion.

edit on 25-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

What is fact is that you can't know that for sure. The only thing derailing this thread are your silly accusations. Like I said, it amounts to little more than intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not a fan of any president, but I'm not so cynical as to assume they weren't genuinely distraught or moved by such a tragedy.
edit on 25-12-2012 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by oper8zhin
But yet Obama and all of the other politicians who are against the idea of armed school guards HAPPILY ACCEPT THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS having armed guards for THEIR CHILDREN'S PROTECTION!!!!!!!!!!!

But when it is asked to have armed guards placed in schools to protect OUR CHILDREN, it is REJECTED.

WOW!!! Folks, do you see the EXTREME HYPOCRISY and ABSURDITY HERE??

For the CHILDREN of We The People[color=skyblue] of America, armed guards to assure OUR children's safety is REJECTED. Yet, for the [color=limegreen]anti-gun TRAITOR politicians of America, armed guards is FULLY ACCEPTED, EMBRACED, and a GOOD idea in THEIR children's schools.

THAT is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!!




edit on 25-12-2012 by oper8zhin because: (no reason given)


You do realize that the CHILDREN of high profile PUBLIC figures and officials are PRIME targets for all kinds of scumbags to abduct, kidnap, kill, etc?

While i do not think one person's child (POTUS) is more important or valuable than another person's child (an average citizen), the fact that it IS a child OF the PRESIDENT or Senator puts that child at a greater risk and a scumbag might perceive the value of that child worth more if taken or killed.

It's not hypocrisy so much as rational.

You understand this, correct?
edit on 25-12-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by papazen
 


There was what 5? US politicians murdered in the 1900's compared to the nearly 10,000 citizens shot every year paints a vastly different picture.
edit on 25-12-2012 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Let's stick to the facts, for truth will always prevail and gain adherents.

President Obama was only elected in 2008, while the grant was authorised in 2000. There were many more critical issues facing the nation then - national survival through the economic disasters he inherited, with massive unemployment and it is only now recently that the growth shoots are showing.

Newtown's massacre of children was a bolt out of the blue. No one, absolutely no one would have believed that idyllic all american town would host this massive tragedy.

Still, it is a lesson learnt that tragedies such as Newtown can and will happen anywhere. We humans are flawed beings and prone to mistakes. It is how we mankind progress and evolve.

Some claimed that having armed guards will make schools look like prison. Thing is, who gives a hoot about 'looks' when the harming and slaughter of innocent young children by the insane in the idiotic 'gun free zones' which only law abidding citizens abides by, but NOT the insane, is a reality today?

There is no need for teachers to be armed. As long as there are DEDICATED professional armed guards at the gates, and whom will respond within seconds to any emergency, it is enough to protect a facillity, to bring down criminals than to wait for police far away to come.

The NRA had been slimed and ostracized by the Media and deluded anti-gun lovers whom serve selfish agendas. The NRA had only spoken truth and reality, something the biased and stupid media along with its sycophantic dreamer anti-gun lovers are lacking in.

Some UK citizens claimed that its anti gun laws had kept gun crime low. It is true, but only for gun crimes as it is not easy to get guns, let alone ammmunition. BUT truth is, had other crimes went down?

None. Today, the UK citizens to feel safe without guns, but DARE they venture out after dark in 'chav' areas? Nope. They hide and cower in fear, as the chavs have a reputation of outright murder to get what they want.

If the brits, whom ruled the world once, had only stopped to think - if innocent civilian brits were armed, dare the chavs attack them? After all, criminals are not pyschos, for they only want to live to enjoy their thefts and intimidation, not die like the sickos who will commit suicide once they feel their deed is done.

While arming each other - civilians and criminals will NEVER get the crime rate down, at least, it will end the massive loss of innocent lives such as Newtown and in China, if citizens were armed. The pyscho would have long been taken OUT by a dedicated shooter who have the courage to save others. And most humans - americans or chinese, do have that courage for we are all one race. It is only natural, most human trait,to be an empath in the face of adversity.
edit on 25-12-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by papazen
 


And the presidents , politicians and their family have always been guarded
you do realize that for the first 100 or so years of this country, NO such protection detail existed, right ? at least not that which was provided and paid for by public tax dollars.

it wasn't until 1902, following the assassination of Pres. McKinley that a 'detail' was assigned to Pres. Roosevelt.
source - www.secretservice.gov...

until then, the POTUS, Congress & their families were desired members of the US community as a whole and did not have a need for such protections.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





While arming each other - civilians and criminals will NEVER get the crime rate down,


This is simply not true my friend. In fact arming citizens has consistently brought crime rates down dramatically every time!



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

So apparently Several schools were given grants by the DOJ as part of a community policing development program but it got cancelled in 2005...


Obama was elected in 2008. Didn't take office until January 2009. But feel free to blame him cancelling a program in 2005.


Looks like Obama has been playing with his time machine again.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I think the question is - Is it the proper role of Government to provide such services (or grants for such services) I believe the answer is NO. If schools feel they need armed guards they should have it within their budget to purchase these services via local taxes for public schools.

All public schools should already have such money. Years ago the idea of having a state lottery was sold to the public because some of this money would go to the schools. Our schools should be the most safe secure places of learning with the best teachers, best materials and broadest curriculum that covers all sides of a topic not one sided " approved by the Government propaganda machine" as is the garbage kids are taught today.

Do any of you see this lottery money in your schools? Nope. It's a criminal scam and your kids are suffering because of it.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by papazen
reply to post by oper8zhin
 


I dont get it. People that fear the NWO and police state etc. now want armed guards patrolling public schools ?. Then its gonna be The librarys , public transit, parks, church's the pizza parlour. Its gonna look like the colony from the Total Recall movie. And the presidents , politicians and their family have always been guarded , they are usually more of a target then the average citizen . nothing new here . The terrorists keep on winning, They won 911 and tossed freedom and constitutional rights down the drain and now you are all treated like cattle at airports. Now the terrorist wins again and watches you all live in fear


They sort of already do that. I think it goes under the name Infragard, an offshoot of the FBI, a special club for community businesses it seems. They get the news before you do. Basically, you get plain clothes cops or other agents following suspicious people into public places, like parks, libraries, restaurants. Most people are too sheepled already to notice or care about the extra attention. Maybe they used a gift card for that hamburger, maybe they have a weird haircut and are acting strangely in a bookstore, maybe they are from out of town and using a computer at a free WiFi place. Maybe they just finished reading online about government stuff, or nuclear physics stuff. Maybe they just gave a $100 bill to the cashier. Maybe they tipped off NSA the day before in a speech about another country.

Most people are too normal to stand out so they never notice it. Because the secret police are not police looking, they blend in with the room. They are usually the ones not buying anything in the building. They still have the patrol walk. They have the clothes that could be hiding a badge or a weapon, but these days, mostly a hidden camera. They walk faster than your average shopping kind, they stare a little longer than anybody else, they never wear denim because they are in a dress code. The security checks are already happening. I'm worried I might be asked for my papers one day.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Shouldn't this be in the hoax bin since Obama had nothing to do with this being cancelled in 2005?

Or does he have a time machine?

Obama wasn't President it was Bush..so the title of this thread should be Bush cancelled or Republicans did..



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
and the republicans get their way there will be deeper cuts but more money for them to pay for the security for their kids

but its obama's fault

lol



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Seriously with the armed guards again? It did not work at Virginia Tech, it did not work at Columbine. What the hell are you going to arm these guards with because it sure as hell better at least what the nut cases are coming at them with and you better a lot more than one. And you better have lots of insurance for kids killed in friendly fire. Honestly people this is not a movie or a video game. A gun fight in school, assuming the guard is not the first one shot, is going to end up bad.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
You have to understand that when a liberal says something like "We have to protect the children", they are using children as a pawn to get something they want. Children have nothing to do with it.

On another note, I'm sure that canceling the grant doesn't have anything to do with much other than budget cutbacks, and it's not a reason to blame Obama (as much as I despise the commie).



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


I didn't blame Obama I as pointing out the hypocrisy of them attacking the suggestion of having armed guards.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Hoax bin or change the title. Posting dis-info is against the rules.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
The title of this thread is GROSSLY misleading, and it's spreading misinformation.

Stop fishing for stars from the right wing nuts on this site and change your thread title to something else please.



new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join