Wow. Lots of people calling for arming teachers. Even the President Trumplestiltskin is pushing for it on twitter. He thinks that, "....If a potential “sicko shooter” knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school."
I guess some schools are even doing it..
Sounds like just a fantastic idea right?... or at least a great way to sell more guns...
A few things this plan doesn't take into account though:
We don't even pay our teachers and schools enough to be able to afford supplies. In fact, the tax deduction that teachers who itemized used to be able to get fo buying supplies is gone thanks to the Republican's new tax scam overhaul. So where will the money for these guns and the tactical training for an active shooter situation come from?
There are 100s of cases of physical abuse by teachers on students each year. In many cases, this is barely investigated or punished. (I'm talking about hitting, not the cases of inappropriate contact) What if one of these armed teachers snaps? How many students can he or she shoot before another armed teacher puts him or her down?
What happens if the teacher misses and hits another innocent student? I don't think many districts could survive that kind of lawsuit. What happens to that teacher? Fired for doing what he was supposed to try and do? Can he live with that guilt? Would any parent want their child in his classroom ever again?
You would have all the same possible problems with armed security. Even vets can miss firing into a crowd. Even if someone has active shooter and hostage training there is no guarantee they won't miss.
Will a teacher even be able to fire at a child they once taught? Can a teacher coldly put one in the head and two in the chest of a child they were teaching just days before? Can they recover after they've done so?
And what about Mr.Trumplesteins claim that a "sicko shooter" would never attack that school? 9 times out of 10 these shooters take their own lives. They are resigned to die before they ever start their rampage. They almost always go after their own school. They want to die and they want to see how many they can take with them, but they don't want strangers. They are after revenge on those they think have done them wrong. Warning them that teachers are armed won't deter many of them if any.
I have to notice the right never even suggests the less lethal alternatives. Stun Guns, Tasers, Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets. At least then you'd have less chance of collateral damage.
But a better approach is to find these kids and help them before these situations occur, and find a way to keep the damn guns out of their hands in the first place.
The real way to arm our teachers is with the tools and training to teach them right, not to take them out!
A friend of mine posted the following piece of trash on his Facebook...
This one really pisses me off and I feel the need to set the record straight!
Point by ridiculous fucking point:
Guns: Only the extremists want to ban guns. A total ban has not ever been a goal. We only want common sense gun laws, something President Trumplestilskin is even starting to agree with. You know this and yet perpetuate this nonsense.
I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope!
Vegetarians: I was a vegetarian growing up (This is true, I was). We were friends. Did I ever once try to stop you from eating meat? Nope. And guess what, my vegetarian liberal friends don't try to stop me either. Once again, you are talking about extremists.
Being Down and Out: I've been down and out. Never asked anyone to take care of me. I used my unemployment benefits, but those were paid for by my employers. By the way 70%of people on aid have at least one job. I know you think they can magically better themselves but since conservatives are also against paying living wages that makes it difficult for the already disenfranchised to suddenly pull themselves up from their bootstraps. Especially if they have children.
Complaining: You crybabies are boycotting the NFL, Starbucks, Target and 100 other organizations because your feelings got hurt by something they did. Not to mention repeated calls for the firing of Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Woopi Goldberg and a host of other. In fact you can put this one in the straight out lie department.
God: I seriously doubt any liberal had come to your house and asked you not to talk about your God. Likewise they don't try to stop you from paying or going to church. The most we do is try to keep it out of government. That's it. I see crosses on every third or fourth house where I live. That's your right. Build a 50ft tall Jesus in your back yard, it's your property. Your religion doesn't belong in the public square. Oh, and by the way... do you know who else is against public prayer? Jesus. Matthew 6:5.... read your own holy book sometime.
Health: I have fantastic insurance. Paid for by my employer (who, by the way pays about 10k as their portion of my premiums - while I pay around $2400 myself). But the prices are high because the poor have to use hospitals like they have revolving doors (they also have to wait until they are desperate becuase they can get no preventative care for anything). They can't pay their bills and that gets passed on to all of us. 3 out of 5 bankruptcies in this country (over 600,000 a year) are people who had insurance and still couldn't pay their medical bills. Why is looking at any way to fix a broken system a bad thing?
I didn't delete it. But you are absolutely right I'm very offended at this stupidity.
"This is Merica!" "You want to know what gives me the right to stockpile a ton of weapons, thousands of bullets, bump stocks, laser sights etc?" "The Damn 2nd Amendment boy! That's what gives me the right. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Damn it! That right there means I can have any Damned weapon I want."
Do you have anything bigger?
That's not the actual entire second amendment though is it?
Amendment II - A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
"Boy, when they are talking about militias they are saying we might have to rise up against the gubment! Damn it Boy, don't you know anything?"
Im'a here to protect you from tyranny.
It's a talking point we have had to hear literally thousands of times. The notion that one of the reasons the right wing of this country thinks it has the right to carry around any damn firearm they want. They think the constitution lets them and this view has been propagated by the NRA and weapon manufacturers until it has become literally ingrained in the heads of a majority of people in this country. Not just the right wing either. A lot of liberals accept this as truth even as they decry the results.
Let's first realize what the militia was. It wasn't a ragtag group of partisan volunteers and anti-government types. It wasn't there to protect the people from the government. In fact, membership was required by the government. All able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 were considered to be in the militia. The articles of Confederation written in 1777 proclaim it the duty of each state to keep and arm a militia. (The Declaration of Independence wasn't ratified until 1787-1788) Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: Articles of Confederation, arts. 6, 9 Article VI. No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. This is a state-controlled and financed militia, and it included everyone.
The Militia act of 1772: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
Every able-bodied person was in this militia. So it makes perfect sense in that context that you couldn't infringe upon their right to bear arms. Doing so would weaken the militia.
So wait, how do we know that the Militia wasn't there to protect the people from the Government? These Founding Fathers were some pretty smart guys. Maybe they were envisioning a time when Billy Bob and his AR-15 would have to go toe to toe with a Huey attack helicopter. I bet that's it... I bet the right wing is at least correct about that part. Right?
Not so much...
Article 8 clearly states that the purpose of a militia is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
So... everyone was in the Militia, the states were individually responsible for keeping them armed and well regulated, and they were there to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel invasion.
Not exactly what the NRA wants you to believe.
If you're smart you'd pee your pants and run when you see this coming.
First off, before I even get started let me say I have loved every incarnation of Star Trek. I have been a big fan of the series and its message of hope for the future for as long as I can remember. Gene Roddenberry was an absolute visionary and will always be remembered as such.
Okay, so the new Star Trek is out and personally, I think it is great. Yeah, the story is a little dark and gritty for Trek, but this is still in the early days of the Star Fleet. It is set after the events of Enterprise but 10 years before The Original Series. I don't want to give too much away to those who haven't seen it and might want to, but right now it is mainly about the start of a war between The United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet) and the Klingon Empire.
New Episodes of Discovery air Sunday night on CBS All Access
The star is Sonequa Martin formerly of The Walking Dead (Sasha) and I think she is fantastic in her role as a human raised by Vulcans.
There are lots of things Trekkies are complaining about... 1) It's on CBS All Access in America so if you want to watch it here you have to pay for it. Everywhere else it's on Netflix (which of course you still have to pay for). 2) They changed the look of the Klingons and gave them more than one race. Apparently, this isn't "Canon" because OMG we have learned everything about the Klingon Empire by now. 3) Klingons are cannibalistic. Also supposedly not "Canon" except for all of the times you know Klingons boasted about eating the hearts of their enemies, even Worf was afraid Dax would not get into Sto-Vo-Kor when she died because she had never done this. 4) It looks better than the original series graphically. You might want to have those campy 1960s graphics back, but this is a modern telling of the story and if the original had been this visually awesome it might have lasted more then three series. If you do truly miss those campy old sets and the banter between Kirk and Spock check out the fan made show Star Trek Continues (I can't explain how awesome a recreation it is, by the third episode you will believe he is Kirk).
Some of these may or may not be legitimate concerns... I personally enjoy the show and will continue to do so...
But one of the biggest complaints people have had regarding the show is the openly homosexual character Lt. Stamets played by Anthony Rapp, and while I can understand this kind of criticism coming from the extreme religious right I truly believe it should be antithetical to any true fan of Star Trek.
Lt. Stamets - Anthony Rapp
Star Trek has always been a series with a social conscience. It has always been about pushing the boundaries of technology and space, but also about pushing the boundaries of acceptance. We've seen such a diverse group of characters in Trek over the years. Strong black women like Lt. Uhuru. Amazing black captains like Captain Sisko of DS9. Russians, Asians, and Scottsmen, and aliens from other friggin planets all working together without a care in the world.... and you want to get upset that the new show has a gay character in it? Are you serious?
Star Trek has always generated controversy Several stations would not air Kirk kissing Uhuru
What part of Gene's vision of openness and acceptance do you people not get? Gay people exist. Gay people contribute fully to society and have every right to love who they love. It's that simple. Hopefully, in the future, more people will understand that.
To those I have seen claiming that this is part of the gay agenda... damn right it is. What exactly do you think the gay agenda is though? Some shadow recruitment technique to turn us all gay thus saving the planets fashion sense for eons to come? No... the only gay agenda that is and ever has been is to be accepted just like everyone else. To be treated as human just like everyone else. To be able to love and be loved just like everyone else.
If you can't get that you shouldn't be watching Star Trek in any iteration at all.
Oh... and just FYI Gene Roddenberry would have wanted an openly gay character on Star Trek at least according to his son. "I think he would be 100 percent in favor of a gay character in 'Star Trek," said Roddenberry during an interview. "There's so much going on in the world today. I think he would love any sort of social issue being brought into 'Star Trek.'"
First a little background: On January 6, 2016 a group of armed idiots took over the the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge in Harney County Oregon. Although it's become convenient to call them the Oregon Militia the groups real name, according to them is The Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and they come from all over the place. There leader is an asshat named Ammon Bundy who is apparently on a mission from God.
Ammon Bundy ~ Driven by God
That's right, he is on a mission from God. In case you didn't know this apparently God wrote the constitution of the United States on Stucky's napkins and gave them to George Washington. We have been messing with God's divine plan for all this beautiful land. How bad? The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has dared to charge ranchers for using federal lands to graze their cattle. It's irrelevant that the USA charges them far less them they would pay on private land. Or that taxpayers will have to foot the bill to upkeep that land without those grazing fees being collected. These constitutional scholars think they should be able to use the land for free. Bundy's daddy Cliven has refused to pay his grazing fees and even had a standoff with the feds in Nevada last year over this very issue.
If that wasn't bad enough the feds also arrested two men, Dwight and Steven Hammond, for poaching deer and setting fire to federal lands in Oregon (That's not what they claim they did, but their own relatives say they were paoching). These winners were apparently trying to cover up a deer slaughter with a fire and burned a lot of Federal BLM Land. The were sentenced to prison, but for less then the minimum required by law, so the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered them back to prison and they also lost their cattle grazing rights for two years.
Apparently this rilled up Ammon Bundy and the Redneck Militia that we are now call Y'all Qaeda or Vanilla Isis. They brought their guns to Oregon for a protest and then bravely stormed and took over an unmanned Wildlife Refuge and they have been there since and will not leave until the federal government gives up control of the wildlife refugee. They were vague about what they wanted at first, but now want the government to give up the land.
Okay so these dumb fuckers gave up jobs and left their loved ones to come and fight the good fight against what they feel is government overreach. Who do they want to control that land? No one is sure, How should there goals be met? They have no idea.
They are a bunch of idiots who want to play army. They are a bunch of seditious traitors who are wanting with all their little hearts to take up arms against their country. Oh, and the Hammond's... the guys these idiots are doing this for, have said straight out to go the fuck away. They don't want their help. At all.
This is Jon Ringlingbrother Ritzheimer. This guy is one of the Militia idiots occupying a federal Government Building in Oregon. He is a combat vet whose only sources of income are his GOVERNMENT disability check and his wife's job. He is a member of the Untied States Paramilitary Patriot movement and was a member of the Oath Keepers until he got kicked out. Wait a minute how the fuck do you get kicked out of the Oath Keepers? Oh, he wanted to arrest a member of the US congress. Apparently that is where the Oath Keepers drew the crazy line.
I could go on and on about Jon but instead I'll leave you with one final fascinating fact. He tried to raise 10 million dollars on a GoFund me page to either finance his life in hiding or challenge John McCain for his Arizona senate seat.
The main takeaway from this is that Jon is getting disability checks from the government which he is now using to fight the government.
In fact a lot of these guys are on disability or welfare or other government programs.
Apparently one of them was also in the foster kid business, He was getting over $100,000 a year for fostering four children, On the plus side that money came from Catholic Charities and not from our taxes but something inside of me is deeply cynical about someone whose main source of income was raising children who undoubtedly helped him work his small ranch.
His name is Robert "La Voy" Finicum and he is actually surprised the children were taken away. He is quoted as blaming pressure from the feds who, "must have gotten to the Governor, who told the state to take them away from there." Could it be because he is committing a felony?
Finicum press conference after destroying supposedly hidden cameras that were in plain site.
Jon Ritzenburger Ritzheimer is right there grabbing 15 more minutes of fame with him.
Seems like a lot of guys with too much time and way to much paranoia got together to play military. Poor dumb overprivileged assholes with too much time on their hands. Willing to follow anyone who will lead them against the government they blame for everything.
So far we have allowed these asshat insurgents to come and go as they please. The government has taken a very low key approach. These assholes have removed cameras and added at least on road to the refuge, destroying public lands. We have done nothing. They have called for reinforcements. We have done nothing. They called for snacks. That's when the Internet started mocking them. That's when the Internet started sending them sex lube, and sex toys. That's when the Internet started sending them dicks.
Jon responds to a good dicking!
They have been called Y'all Qaeda and Vanilla ISIS and those names seem to fit. As I said Ammon Bundy believes this is his divine purpose. He is being driven by God, just as ever religious zealot is. And like any good religious zealot he has found many willing to follow him. So the names fit. They are the American Taliban.
They are also poor fools who think this rich man is acting in their best interests. Ammon Bundy is the son of a millionaire. These are not people fighting for the rest of us, they are fighting for the 1% as fools throughout history have always done. Cliven Bundy is not some small rancher getting crushed by the Government. No! he is a super rich asshole who just doesn't want to pay his fair share. Make no mistake if it wasn't for the BLM these lands would probably already be used up. The Bundy's and this militia are not just trying to take this land from the government, they are trying to take it from all of us.
And that's why they all deserve a big bag of dicks!
I'm not against guns. One of the biggest lies you the right believes is that all liberals want your guns. I'm sure some of us, the extreme ones, do indeed want to disarm you. That is not all of us though. It's not even most of us.
That's not exactly accurate either though. We do want to disarm some of you. If you can't even admit that some people should not have guns then yeah, maybe you are one of them, maybe not. Why is it that you can't even admit that much though. Why the hell can't you say, "Some people who can get guns just should not have them!", until after the tragedy occurs?
Of course your biggest weapon in this little fight for gun rights has apparently become internet MEMEs. Ridiculously stupid internet MEMEs and if you took half a minute to think about the bullshit your posting you wouldn't do it. Sorry, that's a lie and I know it, you idiots will post anything that even remotely agrees with your ammosexual agendas.
Let's start with this one. We don't blame the guns and we don't blame responsible gun owners. Let me repeat and reiterate that, liberals do not blame the guns! You dumb asses really need to stop saying that. We blame easy accessibility to guns by deranged and violent people, many of whom seemed to be fine until they became deranged and violent. We blame the fact that anyone can go to a gun show and get a gun without a back ground check (or could before a couple weeks ago). That's what we blame. Not the gun.
However if you dumb asses want to stick with that analogy. We require people to have drivers licenses and insurance to operate a car. We recognize that the car is inherently dangerous and we require certain conditions be met before it is used because we know it had the potential to be used incorrectly and kill people. If you drive a big commercial vehicle we require even more. Big truck drivers have to have specialized training and follow rules designed to prevent them from accidentally killing hordes of people. Big trucks equal big rules and guns should be the same way.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The words well regulated are the 2nd and 3rd word of the damn amendment. Regulation doesn't mean they are coming for your guns. It doesn't mean they are trying to disarm you. It means using common sense to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands. This was in the constitution that you right wing morons are supposed to think is sacred (It's not by the way, it's a living document and it was meant to be changed). You will try to get around this by quoting (or misquoting, since you never seem to properly source your quotes) to one or more of the founding fathers.
Real quote by Jefferson
Fake quote by Washington.
Really? Someone really thinks this is how Washington talked?
It sounds more like a Bushism.
Are these quotes true? Maybe. I don't know, but even if they were, so the fuck what? Thomas Jefferson didn't write the fucking constitution all by himself.Those amendments were contemplated, fought over, and voted on just like in congress today. Get that through your head, they fought about these things. There was no magical agreement between all parties. There was no psychic rapport that made them all agree with each other. Quotes you read from founding fathers represent one person's view. What matters is the wording that actually made it into the Constitution of the United States of America, and nothing else.
Now let's discuss this bit of stupidity right here...
It's true, criminals do not follow the gun laws. It's also true that thieves don't follow the burglary laws and rapists don't follow consent laws. So by this logic lets get rid of rape and theft laws. Why not, if the bad guys are not going to follow those laws anyway, why the fuck do we have them?
Oh, wait... maybe, just maybe, it is so that when they do break the laws we can arrest them, prosecute them and incarcerate them. You think... you think maybe laws exist on the books so they can be enforced? That seems like a novel idea. I'm going to say that yes we should have laws even though we know criminals will disobey them. I think that's a dandy idea.
The above quote from Jefferson may have been true at one time but seriously do you really think your little AR-15 could defend you from the government? You can go down fighting, but I think when you see the tanks and helicopters coming after you what you will actually do is shit your tea party patriot asses. They are not coming for you anyway but if they did you wouldn't stand a chance. Not a chance.
There are a lot of MEMEs out there trying to confuse otherwise smart carring people into thinking the USA taking any Syrian refugees is the wrong thing to do.
Many are playing on the idea that we have to help our own people first. Many of the people spreading these ideas didn't give a damn about the homeless, veterans or the elderly until they needed a reason to deny help to a group they like even less. In other words they are using the people they didn't care about last week to stop the people they don't care about this week.
America is the greatest country in the world because it cares about people. Our at least that's the way it should be.
So let's talk about some of these MEMEs.
On the surface this one seems pretty on target. Why would we deny our seniors a cozy of living increase. That's outrageous. Completely ridiculous.
Until you realize the cost of living didn't go up last year. I mean the actual cost of living. It's called a cost of living increase because the coast of living has to go up to receive it. With the economy in recovery the cost of living went down last year. That's why there is no cost of living increase. It has nothing to do with refugees, dumbass! From the Social Security Website: Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Information for 2016. With consumer prices down over the past year, monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for nearly 65 million Americans will not automatically increase in 2016.
This one. Wow. Yeah it truly does stuck that we are not taking care of our vets. If our president thinks it's right putting refugees before vets he is very wrong. I won't stand for this bullshit and neither should you.
Except, it's the Republicans in the Senate that keep voting down aid for our vets. Democrats have put up many bills to help vets. The president has publicly supported those bills and the Republicans have killed them. In fact the GOP has voted at least seven times to not support the troops.
The same republicans who want to deny entry in to the US to Syrian refugees are the people denying aid to vets. The same people.
If you told me two of them were poisoned? Depends, how do you know any of them are poisoned? Are you the damn grape expert? No, you are not the Syrian refugee expert either. So far we have not been attacked by a refugee. The right might want to claim the Tsarnev brothers were refugees, they were not. They were immigrants, not refugees. The vetting process for refugees is two years. Over 50% are rejected. Apparently it's a pretty good process.
Well except for this guy. Apparently I am way off base. That vetting process really screwed the pooch when it let this jack off into the country. In fact I take it all back! The only way to stop terrorists is to ban these foreigners.
Wait? What? He was born in the USA? Born in Arlington County Virginia? He wasn't vetted because we don't vet our own citizens? It's clear what we have to do then. We have to stop letting US citizens immigrate to America. That'll teach us.
