View Full Version : The POTUS has thrown down the Gauntlet.
PA PATRIOT
12-16-12, 19:57
Basically in his speech tonight the POTUS stated that he will use all the power available to him to make changes to keep are kids safe.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the POTUS is now officially starting his campaign for another AWB.
Is my tin foil hat on too tight, Opinions on tonights speech.
I just put the kids to bed and started watching my Patriots game. They switched to Obama I would usually be pissed, I'm not. I don't think your wrong. These scumbags need immediate and effective return fire. They're attacking our most vulnerable and innocent, our children. Lets arm teachers and other school staff willing to train just like we did pilots. We need to fight back.
So he's going to immediately reauthorize the billion dollars in school security funding he let lapse the last 2 years? :
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure
What a douche. :rolleyes:
My opinion is this......The POTUS ideas on an AWB and/or assault on the 2A have been there all along. No need for a feel good "I will make things whole again" speech to tell me what is going on in the membrane. Here is the open door and he will step through, no politician in his or her right mind would oppose legislation that would stop another massacre of small children. I give it until late January, maybe early Feb to have something up for a vote. I hope I am wrong.
I caught his act, it was not appropriate, this was supposed to be a prayer service, he usurped it to capitalize & exploit this latest atrocity, to advance his politcal agenda...The man, and his political party, are a shame...
Alaskapopo
12-16-12, 20:09
My opinion is this......The POTUS ideas on an AWB and/or assault on the 2A have been there all along. No need for a feel good "I will make things whole again" speech to tell me what is going on in the membrane. Here is the open door and he will step through, no politician in his or her right mind would oppose legislation that would stop another massacre of small children. I give it until late January, maybe early Feb to have something up for a vote. I hope I am wrong.
Again look at the voter base. Congressmen will follow what their base wants. There simple is not the votes. But we will see.
Pat
Again look at the voter base. Congressmen will follow what their base wants. There simple is not the votes. But we will see.
Pat
Agreed, but I'm more concerned with him trying to use executive orders or some other means of usurping power.
I caught his act, it was not appropriate, this was supposed to be a prayer service, he usurped it to capitalize & exploit this latest atrocity, to advance his politcal agenda...The man, and his political party, are a shame...
He is an ardent proponent of never letting a crisis go to waste. I'm sickened by the media, politicians and opportunists using this aberration to advance the destruction of our Constitution and Country.
My opinion is this......The POTUS ideas on an AWB and/or assault on the 2A have been there all along. No need for a feel good "I will make things whole again" speech to tell me what is going on in the membrane. Here is the open door and he will step through, no politician in his or her right mind would oppose legislation that would stop another massacre of small children. I give it until late January, maybe early Feb to have something up for a vote. I hope I am wrong.
I don' t know.. We've got elections coming up for the senate in two years, Senators up for election will have to decide whether or not to sacrifice their careers for a lame duck president....This morning on one of the political talk shows Joe Liberman was on, and got it partly correct. What happened was a mental health problem more than anything, and he admitted that more gun control laws would'nt solve anything..That said, he went onto say that the "gun control loophole" aka, private sales needs closed... I agree with his mental health assessment But, he can shove the rest.
Executive Orders is what I'm oat afraid of.
Lets arm teachers and other school staff willing to train just like we did pilots. We need to fight back.
I don't think we can mandate arming teachers, but it should be an option they can choose if they want.
Only yesterday I was put off by the idea of armed guards at schools (realistically armed RSOs at every school), but given the alternative of further legislation I think that would be preferred.
Cagemonkey
12-16-12, 20:41
I think that any Police at the school should be in plain cloths. Otherwise they Police end up being target #1 for the shooter. The shooter needs to be kept guessing and unsure of his environment.
Alaskapopo
12-16-12, 20:59
I think that any Police at the school should be in plain cloths. Otherwise they Police end up being target #1 for the shooter. The shooter needs to be kept guessing and unsure of his environment.
I disagree. The kids need to know who the good guy is and so do responding officers who may be from other jurisdictions. Plus in uniform you have the ability to carry a lot more gear that can help in an active shooter situation.
Pat
I wish we had a reasonably accurate head count on how many people have been killed with the Fast Furious guns. I can promise it is in the hundreds.
Alaskapopo
12-16-12, 21:03
Executive Orders is what I'm oat afraid of.
Agreed but that would affect imported items. He does not have the ability to make an executive order banning domestic firearms.
Pat
I disagree. The kids need to know who the good guy is and so do responding officers who may be from other jurisdictions. Plus in uniform you have the ability to carry a lot more gear that can help in an active shooter situation.
Pat
Rarely do I disagree with you, but it should be run like the FAMS program. Very discrete, undercover and no one outside the administration and the local responding LE agencies should know who or how many are carrying weapons (or have access to them). The armed personnel must have strict use of force and engagement policies. They never intervene in any non-lethal encounter. Their sole mission in life is to lie in wait and counter-ambush an active lethal threat. The deterrent and response capabilities are enhanced by the secretive nature of the program. The one thing you do is make it very clear that they are there. Are there two armed agents in the school? Five? Twenty? See how that complicates the active shooter's plot?
It's all well and good to have SRO's on site and I think it's an excellent program. But what happens when the potential shooter knows who the SRO is and either takes them out first, or waits until they're off site? Undercover armed responders are VERY difficult to account for when planning a massacre.
It's the very best security measure you can take.
I disagree. The kids need to know who the good guy is and so do responding officers who may be from other jurisdictions. Plus in uniform you have the ability to carry a lot more gear that can help in an active shooter situation.
Pat
The kids already know who the teachers are and who they can ask for help and it isn't because they wear uniforms. Unless you're talking about having SWAT guys on campus a uniformed officers can't carry any more items than a guy wearing a covering garment.
I'd like to see a pair of uniformed officers at the only entry point to the school handling people entering the facility, so the secretaries can do their real jobs. Then depending in the size of the school I'd like to see a number plain clothes guys on roving patrol. I don't think that we are at a point where we need to place rifle toting SWAT guys in schools. We need to better control perimeter access and insure that we are able to immediately and violently respond to a threat if it materializes. We need to do this without turning schools into prisons.
Alaskapopo
12-16-12, 21:16
Rarely do I disagree with you, but it should be run like the FAMS program. Very discrete, undercover and no one outside the administration and the local responding LE agencies should know who or how many are carrying weapons (or have access to them). The armed personnel must have strict use of force and engagement policies. They never intervene in any non-lethal encounter. Their sole mission in life is to lie in wait and counter-ambush an active lethal threat. The deterrent and response capabilities are enhanced by the secretive nature of the program. The one thing you do is make it very clear that they are there. Are there two armed agents in the school? Five? Twenty? See how that complicates the active shooter's plot?
It's all well and good to have SRO's on site and I think it's an excellent program. But what happens when the potential shooter knows who the SRO is and either takes them out first, or waits until they're off site? Undercover armed responders are VERY difficult to account for when planning a massacre.
It's the very best security measure you can take.
I understand what you are saying but there are a lot of other things that SRO's have to do like teach DARE, other classes as well as general security. No way people are going to pay for just plain clothes professionals that do nothing else. I mean if there is grant money sure but communities will not be willing to pay. Not that I am against that. I agree the shooter would target an SRO first but its up to the SRO to be alert and aware of what is going on around him. Like I said before I like the ability to have armor, and other less lethal options that being in uniform provides. I also think that SRO's should have long guns secured inside the school so they can respond with more than their handguns.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-16-12, 21:18
The kids already know who the teachers are and who they can ask for help and it isn't because they wear uniforms. Unless you're talking about having SWAT guys on campus a uniformed officers can't carry any more items than a guy wearing a covering garment.
I'd like to see a pair of uniformed officers at the only entry point to the school handling people entering the facility, so the secretaries can do their real jobs. Then depending in the size of the school I'd like to see a number plain clothes guys on roving patrol. I don't think that we are at a point where we need to place rifle toting SWAT guys in schools. We need to better control perimeter access and insure that we are able to immediately and violently respond to a threat if it materializes. We need to do this without turning schools into prisons.
The part in red is not true and I have worked plainclothes for 3 of my 13 years to base that opinion on. Generally at least in Alaska most officers wear external vest carriers that allow us to carry more things on our person than you ever could on just your belt concealed under a jacket. Its not full on SWAT but it does allow us to carry, pepper spray, tasers, flash light, handcuffs, baton, concealed back up gun etc.
Pat
diving dave
12-16-12, 21:22
I see Feinstein has wasted no time and is introducing a bill that bans sale,transfer and possession of "assault rifles" and high cap mags..She is a crackpot and I can't imagine that a bill that punishes law abiding gun owners will get anywhere..but these days who knows. At the least I think a ban on high caps will happen..
Don't know if it's been posted in the whole slew of threads, but I think this is a great article that's appropriate for here.....
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
I understand what you are saying but there are a lot of other things that SRO's have to do like teach DARE, other classes as well as general security. No way people are going to pay for just plain clothes professionals that do nothing else. I mean if there is grant money sure but communities will not be willing to pay. Not that I am against that. I agree the shooter would target an SRO first but its up to the SRO to be alert and aware of what is going on around him. Like I said before I like the ability to have armor, and other less lethal options that being in uniform provides. I also think that SRO's should have long guns secured inside the school so they can respond with more than their handguns.
Pat
In order for the numbers to work out, it needs to be a collateral duty of school employees and possibly a few volunteers. It would be modeled after the FAMS program, but funded like the FFDO program.
In my AO the majority if uniformed guys do not wear vests of any kind and are limited to what they carry on a belt. My view of these folks is similar to air marshals. Not there it deal with the drunk guy, but the guy trying to kill everyone. As such they dont need mace, they don't need batons, tazers and what not.
My vision of these guys solely as a response to immediate violent threats. No dicking around with trouble makers. No dicking around with enforcing drug laws, any of that sort of thing. Spend your day herding the cats to and from class and when some dipshit shows up trying to kill everyone shoot them down as fast as possible.
I really don't want to turn schools into what seem like prisons. At least not yet. As tragic as this event is, it's still an outlier so going bat shit crazy with gun bans or heavy security.
In my AO the majority if uniformed guys do not wear vests of any kind and are limited to what they carry on a belt. My view of these folks is similar to air marshals. Not there it deal with the drunk guy, but the guy trying to kill everyone. As such they dont need mace, they don't need batons, tazers and what not.
My vision of these guys solely as a response to immediate violent threats. No dicking around with trouble makers. No dicking around with enforcing drug laws, any of that sort of thing. Spend your day herding the cats to and from class and when some dipshit shows up trying to kill everyone shoot them down as fast as possible.
I really don't want to turn schools into what seem like prisons. At least not yet. As tragic as this event is, it's still an outlier so going bat shit crazy with gun bans or heavy security.
That's an added bonus with what I propose. It's all nice and friendly on the surface. No visible weapons, no body armor or tactical gear, no prison type controls or military installation feel, but they're there and they'll shoot the **** out of you if you try it. :mad:
Another option is arming JROTC Instructors in schools that have them. Lots now days are combat vets.
The problem with most resource officers (school cops) in my area is the are almost all the cops who don't do so well on the road if you know what I mean. We had one who had an AD in a lunchroom, one who got too friendly with the girls.... You know the story.
But hey, who's to say the next nutcase DOES abide by current gun laws, and instead decides to drive a dump truck through a courtyard or lunchroom. Cops in the school won't be much use to stop that. Point being, we can't...well we probably could sit down & come up with all the security solutions to problems we may face at schools, malls, ball games....., but in action there is only so much we can be prepared for. Evil people will find a way to do evil acts regardless if that is what the are set on doing, and any person who has made up their mind to kill or injure and is willing to trade their life to achieve that goal is, atleast initially, nearly impossible to stop.
I don't think we can mandate arming teachers, but it should be an option they can choose if they want.
Only yesterday I was put off by the idea of armed guards at schools (realistically armed RSOs at every school), but given the alternative of further legislation I think that would be preferred.
I agree it needs to be their choice or it wouldn't work.
Agreed but that would affect imported items. He does not have the ability to make an executive order banning domestic firearms.
Pat
I didn't know that. Good.
I wonder how the Montana Firearms Freedom Act will turn out... If it is favorable for Montana, then we can see the power of a federal awb drop to very little... Just hope you live in a state that has a firearms manufacturer.
Fawkstains weapon ban bill states "Posession". How's that going to work out if it goes through? Buy-back program like Australia? Nope. The gov't doesn't have the funds for that. Neither do they have the manpower of minions to round up legally owned guns, unless they're suicidal. Legislation maybe? Something like attaching taxes or drivers license renewal to gun turn-ins? I can see restricting future purchases as a possibility, but the stuff already in circulation is damn near impossible to confiscate.
I guess there's no point in speculating. We'll find out soon enough.
So once again the knee jerk reaction is once again to try and screw the honest law abiding citizen for something we can't control? As sad as this is and it is really a sad thing that this has happened but don't think for a moment that the sportsman,hunting,gun community will not fight back!
So once again the knee jerk reaction is once again to try and screw the honest law abiding citizen for something we can't control? As sad as this is and it is really a sad thing that this has happened but don't think for a moment that the sportsman,hunting,gun community will not fight back!
Obama, a marxist, is giddy over his good fortune here, he intended to do this via his, and his AG's gunwalker/fast & furious treasons, until they were caught red-handed , they still skated on it!
This is not knee-jerk, its well planned out, don't be fooled by Obamas tearful sham, or his inappropriate usurption of these poor childrens prayer service, this man is a cold, calculating, opportunist, likely a psychopath in his own right. While he certainly didn't order Lanza to kill, as the Alex Jones tinfoil cappers would have us believe, he sure as hell was awaiting an opportunity he knew would come, tonight, he did just that, and exploited it to the fullest extent...
Again look at the voter base. Congressmen will follow what their base wants. There simple is not the votes. But we will see.
Pat
I would have agreed with this a week ago. Tonight I received a text message from a pretty conservative friend of mine in SC that had a link to Obama's speech and then he said:
"I am with the POTUS on this one. It's time for common sense change. The line has been crossed and enough is enough. It is time for a ban on "automatic" :rolleyes: assault weapons. No practical reason for a civilian to have one. I have broken ranks with my conservative bretheren. An assault rifle killed those little children in the hands of a nutjob...not a pistol. An assault rifle put hundreds of rounds in their small bodies."
Emotions are high right now and a lot of people want someone/something to pay for this tragedy. Scary guns are what Obama will latch on to and offer up as a sacrifice. Americans tend to have a short attention span and he will need to act fast to get traction.
The_War_Wagon
12-17-12, 01:35
Basically in his speech tonight the POTUS stated that he will use all the power available to him to make changes to keep are kids safe.
I second the motion. His resignation would be the FIRST "change" I would endorse.
Again look at the voter base. Congressmen will follow what their base wants. There simple is not the votes. But we will see.
Pat
Wrong. I cite senator Landreu of my own state during the UHC bill vote. Her tax base was ignored.
.....*but don't think for a moment that the sportsman,hunting,gun community will not fight back!
I'd like to completely agree with you on the issue of the hunting and sportsman community fighting back hard but unfortunately I don't see it.
At least in my part of the world most guys don't have ARs/AKs and if they do it's more of a novelty item. It's a not their passion in life like me or almost everyone else on M4C.
Now try to take away their hunting rifles/their over under shotgun clay rifles their would be hell to pay. Sadly if it doesn't directly hit them the urge to respond will become diluted.
-Jax
Magic_Salad0892
12-17-12, 03:57
We didn't get any anti-gun legislation when Ms. Gliffords was shot.
We didn't get it when VA Tech was attacked.
We didn't get it after the Colorado shooting.
We didn't get it after that military base was shot up.
We didn't get it after that Sikh Temple was shot up.
There are more people afraid to have their rights removed than people who want to remove them. I think.
I think there is still hope.
People need to remember that the Bill of Rights signifies what the government CANNOT do. Not what you CAN do.
Tell your buddy kindly he is an ill informed moron. Even if they banned "assault weapons" tomorrow how would they be rounded up and destroyed? It will be impossible to do so.
Just imagine all of the people who have stripped lowers and all the parts to complete several builds. :D
How do you round up something that hasn't been built?
I would also remind him that once the evil "assault weapons" are banned and someone goes to a school with a pump shotgun and .38 special revolver and kills 15 kids what is coming next. You guessed it- a ban on "assault shotguns and pistols" and it will never end.
If any gun owner in his right mind thinks that eliminating a so-called assault weapon is going to satisfy the thirst for people to destroy the 2nd Amendment they they are delusional. They will stop at nothing less than complete and total bans on firearms because it works so well.
I would have agreed with this a week ago. Tonight I received a text message from a pretty conservative friend of mine in SC that had a link to Obama's speech and then he said:
Emotions are high right now and a lot of people want someone/something to pay for this tragedy. Scary guns are what Obama will latch on to and offer up as a sacrifice. Americans tend to have a short attention span and he will need to act fast to get traction.
I have met plenty of Fudds and collectors who disdain military styled weapons and wouldn't cry a tear if they disappeared. I remember them vividly during the first AWB stating the nonsense about they won't take away my bolt action gun or my duckgun.
So once again the knee jerk reaction is once again to try and screw the honest law abiding citizen for something we can't control? As sad as this is and it is really a sad thing that this has happened but don't think for a moment that the sportsman,hunting,gun community will not fight back!
I would have agreed with this a week ago. Tonight I received a text message from a pretty conservative friend of mine in SC that had a link to Obama's speech and then he said:
Emotions are high right now and a lot of people want someone/something to pay for this tragedy. Scary guns are what Obama will latch on to and offer up as a sacrifice. Americans tend to have a short attention span and he will need to act fast to get traction.
Did you mention to him that he didn't use an "assault" rifle?
Fawkstains weapon ban bill states "Posession". How's that going to work out if it goes through? Buy-back program like Australia? Nope. The gov't doesn't have the funds for that. Neither do they have the manpower of minions to round up legally owned guns, unless they're suicidal. Legislation maybe? Something like attaching taxes or drivers license renewal to gun turn-ins? I can see restricting future purchases as a possibility, but the stuff already in circulation is damn near impossible to confiscate.
I guess there's no point in speculating. We'll find out soon enough.
My opinion on how it would work (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=1471616&posted=1#post1471616).
I would also remind him that once the evil "assault weapons" are banned and someone goes to a school with a pump shotgun and .38 special revolver and kills 15 kids what is coming next. You guessed it- a ban on "assault shotguns and pistols" and it will never end.
If any gun owner in his right mind thinks that eliminating a so-called assault weapon is going to satisfy the thirst for people to destroy the 2nd Amendment they they are delusional. They will stop at nothing less than complete and total bans on firearms because it works so well.
Bingo.
Voodoo_Man
12-17-12, 07:07
Don't know if it's been posted in the whole slew of threads, but I think this is a great article that's appropriate for here.....
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
Good article.
They keep talking about "the safety of our children". FWIW, I'd feel way ****ing better about sending my kid to public school, where he is offered no protection beyond cowering under a desk, if he could go with a Glock on the hip...:D
In all seriousness though, beyond a daily strip-search at the door and having armed guards, how the **** do you expect to keep weapons out of large buildings with dozens, if not hundreds of ground-floor entrances (windows, doors, etc.) and not violate fire codes (no bars, un-open-able doors, etc.)? It's not possible. What if the thug in question rushes the metal detector, guns blazing? What if he's let in by his cronies? I'd be way more confident if I knew a few teachers were, say, ex-SEAL's wearing Sig's in class? I feel like we wouldn't have so many discipline issues either...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.