Glenn Reynolds/Instapundit's Reflections on Sandy Hook Shooting in Newtown, CT

Writing in USA Today, Glenn Reynolds, the University of Tennessee law professor and proprietor of Instapundit reflects on the Sandy Hook School shooting. Snippets:

If police took twenty minutes to respond at a school, how likely are they to get to your house in time? For those of us without "security teams" [that gun-rights opponents such as Mike Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch have], the answer isn't reassuring....

A 20-year-old lunatic stole some guns and killed people. Who's to blame? According to a lot of our supposedly rational and tolerant opinion leaders, it's . . . the NRA, a civil-rights organization whose only crime was to oppose laws banning guns. (Ironically, it wasn't even successful in Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.)

The hatred was intense. One Rhode Island professor issued a call -- later deleted -- for NRA head Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick." People like author Joyce Carol Oatesand actress Marg Helgenberger wished for NRA members to be shot. So did Texas Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias, who also called the NRA a "terrorist organization," and Texas Republican congressman Louis Gohmert a "terror baby."...

Calling people murderers and wishing them to be shot sits oddly with claims to be against violence. The NRA -- like the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Planned Parenthood -- exists to advocate policies its members want. It's free speech. The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it.

Read the whole thing here.

I'm no fan of the NRA and I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague Jacob Sullum that the organization is fighting anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria. That's a huge mistake, especially since as a country we need less hysteria in general and especially when it comes to gun control laws (read more about what that might look like here).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    I'm no fan of the NRA and I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague Jacob Sullum's that the organization is fighting anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria.

    Nick Gillespie: America's leading cosmotarian douchebag.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Nothing but the truth.

  • juris imprudent||

    I don't like the NRA all that much either; I prefer SAF, CCRKBA or GOA.

  • squarooticus||

    The ideal answer, even for this gun owner, is for humanity not to be violent enough for guns to be necessary. The unicorn fart/fairy dust/fantasy-free version, however, is that guns exist and some people want to use them to kill other people, so self-defense and the means to achieve it are basic human rights. That is not "pro-gun hysteria", Nick, you cosmotarian douchebag. Yeah, your kid's chances of dying in a school shooting are nearly zero, but which parent wants to be a statistic?

  • John||

    Funny how they love to cite the old "your chances of dying in "X" are near zero" in relation to terrorism but seem to forget that fact when talking about school shootings.

    And since when is telling people to arm themselves "pro gun hysteria"? This is why people think that the Reason staff are just liberals pretending to be libertarians so they can collect a paycheck until something better comes along.

  • squarooticus||

    Nah, I'm pretty sure Nick is a libertarian... he just really likes being invited to DC-area parties, so he tones down certain aspects of libertarianism to make himself seem less horrifying to the glitterati. Same with Postrel. This is where "cosmotarian" comes from: libertarians who stick to issues that are trendy and acceptable to libruls.

    Matt's return, along with his occasional satisfying rants, almost makes me think he might be a real, actual libertarian. That is, unless he got canned, in which case Reason was just the default holding pattern.

  • John||

    I think Matt is real. He didn't last a year at the LA Times. You get run off from a place like that because you are not a liberal.

  • SIV||

    They canned Cavanaugh too. Exception proving the rule?

  • Randian||

    Exception proving the rule?

    You aren't using that phrase correctly.

    Google "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis"

  • wareagle||

    careful with the "likes being invited" references. There is certain hypersensitive member of the commentariat who thinks that is an over-used cliche.

  • Randian||

    Behold, mortals! I have been summoned.

  • wareagle||

    +1 self-awareness bauble. :)

  • sarcasmic||

    And since when is telling people to arm themselves "pro gun hysteria"?

    Except that telling people to arm themselves is not what the NRA dude called for. He did not advocate allowing people who can already legally defend themselves with a weapon to be allowed to carry in schools.

    The guy called for placing armed guards in every school, while presumably those who can legally defend themselves in other public places would still be banned from self defense in schools.

    Not the same thing.

  • nicole||

    At the risk of re-running last week's argument, I don't think it's a matter of "pro-gun hysteria," but "statist hysteria from someone who happens to be pro-gun instead of anti-gun."

  • mnarayan||

    +1

  • John||

    True. But the fault there is that the NRA wasn't pro gun enough. If Nick wants to rip on the NRA for not advocating people defend themselves, go for it. But that is not what he is doing here. He is accusing them of "pro gun hysteria". Whatever that is, I doubt it is for not advocating enough for guns.

  • sarcasmic||

    He is accusing them of "pro gun hysteria". Whatever that is,

    There is a distinction between allowing those who can legally carry to carry at schools, and mandating that there be an armed guard at every school.

    The former guarantees nothing. There is no guarantee that someone there will be armed. It is possible since it is not prohibited, but there is no guarantee.

    The latter guarantees that there be a gun in every school. It mandates it.

    I think that mandating that there be an armed guard at every school does amount to "pro gun hysteria".

  • John||

    I think that mandating that there be an armed guard at every school does amount to "pro gun hysteria".

    No it doesn't. We have armed guards at every bank don't we? We have armed guards at most shopping malls. Why wouldn't we have armed guards around schools?

    I think it is highly debatable whether the cost of doing so is worth alleviating the small risk of a mass shooting. For that reason I wouldn't support it. But I wouldn't call the idea crazy or hysterical. And I can't understand why Reason would either. Again, the criticism here is that the NRA didn't come out for teachers and other lawful carry permit holders being allowed to carry in schools as well, not for advocating for armed guards.

  • $park¥||

    We have armed guards at every bank don't we?

    No, we don't.

    And I can't understand why Reason would either.

    You don't understand their motives, therefore COSMOTARIANS!

  • John||

    No, we don't.

    Yes we do. And even if you can find an exception, you wouldn't call having armed guards at banks "pro gun hysteria". So why is calling for the same at schools "pro gun hysteria"? It is not.

    And I can't understand why Reason would either.

    You don't understand their motives, therefore COSMOTARIANS!

    Where did I call anyone that? Try reading the posts before responding to them. You will find it makes your responses much more effective.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes we do.

    No we don't. I have never, repeat never seen an armed guard at a bank with the exception of the guys driving the armored trucks.

    Then again I've never been in a bank in D.C.

  • ||

    you wouldn't call having armed guards at banks "pro gun hysteria".

    Is it the "pro gun" in pro gun hysteria you have a problem with John?

    Because, while I can see your point if that's the case, it is certainly still hysteria. Putting armed guards in public schools is asinine. Hasn't been necessary for a couple of hundred years and it isn't now as we really don't have a statistically significant problem.

    And the difference between a bank and a school is that I don't pay for the bank's security unless I choose to.

    The right's "solution"...MOAR GUBMINT!

  • Randian||

    The proper way to parse this is that LaPierre is putting forth hysteria in the service of a pro-gun agenda, not that he is putting forth "pro-gun hysteria".

  • ||

    ^^^^
    THIS

    Moar elegantly put, as usual.

  • sarcasmic||

    We have armed guards at every bank don't we?

    Not around here.

    We have armed guards at most shopping malls.

    Not around here.

    Why wouldn't we have armed guards around schools?

    For one, the cost. Second, do we really want to condition children to accept the presence of armed agents of the state around them at all times? Third, in light of all these instances of cops shooting unarmed people for not showing them sufficient respect, how long before cops start capping unruly students (procedure was followed, nothing else happened)?

    No thanks. My solution would be to ban gun free zones. That's the real problem.

  • John||

    Sarcasmic, I have never been into a bank that didn't have an armed guard. But regardless, having them is hardly "pro gun hysteria" or a crazy idea. And neither is having them at schools. That is the point.

    And for the third time, yes, I agree with you, letting people arm themselves is the better solution. That is the proper criticism of the NRA. But that is not the criticism Nick or Reason is making.

  • sarcasmic||

    But regardless, having them is hardly "pro gun hysteria" or a crazy idea. And neither is having them at schools. That is the point.

    Uh, there is a difference between banks and schools. Banks are where the money is. That's why people rob them.

    In high crime areas it would make perfect sense to place an armed guard in the bank. I assume the guard is a bank employee, not an agent of the state, and thus subject to the same laws as everyone else.

    Schools are public buildings, so the armed guard there would be a public employee, and thus not subject to the same laws as a mere citizen.

    I would think that placing a cop in every school would make them less safe, not more.

  • sarcasmic||

    Additionally, once there is a cop in every school, wouldn't the cop soon be the chief disciplinarian? You want schoolyard fights being broken up by a heavy handed agent of the state? How long before Johnny gets tased for giving Officer Friendly an ugly look? No thanks.

  • SIV||

    There already are cops in most public high schools.

  • sarcasmic||

    There already are cops in most public high schools.

    I don't know how you define "most", because I've never seen a cop at a school in the three states in which I have lived.

  • SIV||

    I don't think there is a public HS in all of GA w/o a "school resource officer".

  • sarcasmic||

    Remind me to never send my kid to school in Georgia.

  • John||

    Sarcasmic,

    They already call the cops for everything anyway. That ship has sailed. And most high end private schools have armed guards. Sidwell Friends, where Maloosa and Soosha Obama go has them, and that was before the Secret Service showed up.

    And you would support teachers carrying wouldn't you? What is an armed teacher, but an armed guard? So even you admit the idea is not hysterical.

  • sarcasmic||

    They already call the cops for everything anyway.

    Right, but after the fight has been broken up. How do cops usually break up a fight? By clubbing everyone involved. You really want a cop whipping out his club and beating up children? I guarantee that's what will happen, and nothing else will happen.

    And most high end private schools have armed guards.

    Yeah, those armed guards are not above the law, unlike cops.

  • SIV||

    That is the NRA's position as well.They alluded to it in the press conference but stressed "professional" guards as that is what post-Sandy Hook opinion polling says most people want.

  • wareagle||

    They alluded to it in the press conference but stressed "professional" guards

    well, if you want to professionalize....

  • sloopyinca||

    But I wouldn't call the idea crazy or hysterical.

    I would since it wants me to pay to arm and station an armed agent of the state at every school. Allowing people to exercise their 2A rights is perfectly legitimate. Creating another bureaucracy or tax drain on citizens so the state can further entrench itself by placing armed guards at every school is fucking hysteria.

    And where do you live where there are armed guards at every bank and mall? I want to make sure I never have to live there.

  • John||

    I would since it wants me to pay to arm and station an armed agent of the state at every school.

    Not every armed guard is a cop. And for the fourth time on this thread, your problem with the NRA is that they are too pro cop. And that is not "pro gun hysteria" and not the criticism Nick was making.

    And for the 4th time, I agree with you that it makes more sense just to let the teachers get CC permits rather than hire cops or armed guards. But again, what is a armed teacher but an armed guard? You clearly don't think the idea of armed guards is crazy, because you are advocating for just that. You problem is with cops, not guns.

    So feel free to accuse the NRA of pro cop hysteria. But stop accusing them of "pro gun" hysteria because that is clearly not what is going on here.

  • sarcasmic||

    But again, what is a armed teacher but an armed guard?

    A citizen who is secretly armed for self defense is the same as a person who is armed and paid specifically to react to and deter violence?

    False equivocation for the win!

    Go Tulpa!

  • John||

    Yes sarcasmic. Don't bother to read the fucking post. Don't pay any attention TO THE FOUR FUCKING TIMES I said the NRA is way too pro cop and that hiring police in schools is a dumb idea.

    Whatever you do, don't do that. Just say something completely fucking stupid and accuse me of believing something that is the complete opposite of what I just said.

  • sarcasmic||

    accuse me of believing something that is the complete opposite of what I just said

    Allow me to quote you.

    "But again, what is a armed teacher but an armed guard? You clearly don't think the idea of armed guards is crazy, because you are advocating for just that."

    Clearly you are implying that an armed teacher is equivalent to an armed guard. Is that not what you said? Are you not equivocating a teacher arming themselves as a citizen with hiring an armed guard?

    You problem is with cops, not guns.

    Pro-gun hysteria is demanding that every school has a person with a gun to solve the problem created by not allowing law abiding citizens to be armed.

    You're hopeless.

  • John||

    Clearly you are implying that an armed teacher is equivalent to an armed guard.

    NOT ALL GUARDS ARE COPS. Why is that so hard to understand? I could go my kid's school with a gun and stand guard as a private citizen every day. I would be strictly speaking an "Armed Guard". But I would not be a cop or an agent of the state.

    When I say "guard" I do not mean "agent of the state". You can't figure that out? Jesus H. Christ, did Tulpa hijack your account? You are normally not this fucking stupid or literal.

  • sarcasmic||

    Clearly you are implying that an armed teacher is equivalent to an armed guard.

    You're more dense than depleted uranium.

  • John||

    Yes, a teacher can be an armed guard dipshit. What do you think an armed guard is? Someone who is armed standing guard over something?

    Give it up Tulpa.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes, a teacher can be an armed guard dipshit.

    A teacher can be an armed teacher.

    What do you think an armed guard is? Someone who is armed standing guard over something?

    Does the word duh mean anything to you?

  • sloopyinca||

    Your arguments remind me of this little Asian girl, John.

    "Armed Guard", in the context every proponent has used in this debate, means a person hired with the express purpose of guarding the school. And that means a state/city/federal employee whose job description does not incluse teaching, collecting trash or counseling students. It's a new position that will be created by making a new law, and that law will not involve allowing other school employees or other private citizens to enjoy their 2A Rights on school grounds.

    You know that but are still arguing in bad faith. C'mon, man. You're batter than this.

  • sarcasmic||

    You know that but are still arguing in bad faith. C'mon, man. You're batter than this.

    He's so batter he's... Tempura Man!

  • sarcasmic||

    When I say "guard" I do not mean "agent of the state".

    When the context is public education, then an armed guard, in the context of someone hired by the school for the purpose of standing around with a gun, would indeed be an agent of the state.

    Fucking context. How does it work?

  • John||

    Because every school is a public school and everyone who works on public property has law enforcement authority.

    It is not that you are retarded, you just dig your self into holes of stupid and refuse to leave.

  • sloopyinca||

    Because every school is a public school and everyone who works on public property has law enforcement authority.

    [CITATION REQUIRED]

  • John||

    No citation needed sloopy. That would be because it was SARCASM.

  • ||

    NOT ALL GUARDS ARE COPS. Why is that so hard to understand? I could go my kid's school with a gun and stand guard as a private citizen every day. I would be strictly speaking an "Armed Guard". But I would not be a cop or an agent of the state.

    "Armed guards" aren't necessary either. Simply repealing the ban on guns in schools would provide the potential that some of the staff COULD be packin'. That, in itself, will dissuade potential shooters and I don't have to PAY for that protection with some gubmint program. NOT TO MENTION the positive aspect of NOT turning our schools into gulags.

  • sarcasmic||

    Simply repealing the ban on guns in schools would provide the potential that some of the staff COULD be packin'.

    "Ruh. Ruh. Ruh pee. Ruh peel. Ruh ruh ruh peel. Ruh-peel? I don't understand. What does that mean?"

    /typical politician

  • John||

    I totally agree Francisco. Let the teachers be armed and call it a day.

  • sarcasmic||

    I could go my kid's school with a gun and stand guard as a private citizen every day.

    Not within a thousand feet unless you have a desire to go to prison.

  • sloopyinca||

    And for the fourth time on this thread, your problem with the NRA is that they are too pro cop.

    This is my first comment on the thread, John. WTF ar you talking about? And I'm not against the NRA because they are pro-cop. I'm against the NRA because they are pro-powerful state, which is what the 2A was written to combat.

    And for the 4th time, I agree with you that it makes more sense just to let the teachers get CC permits rather than hire cops or armed guards.

    Oh, let's allow teachers to get the permission of the state to exercise their fundamental 2A rights on public property. Thanks for the permission slip, John.

    But again, what is a armed teacher but an armed guard?

    No John. It's a private citizen that is exercising his/her fundamental 2A rights on public property. It's the furthest thing in the world from an armed guard, a term which specifically denotes a job description of "guarding" something.

    You clearly don't think the idea of armed guards is crazy, because you are advocating for just that. You problem is with cops, not guns.

    I'm advocating for the 2A rights of private citizens to be honored, not for armed "guards". And my problem here is with the state sanctioning who can and cannot exercise their 2A rights on public property. It is with people who would license and qualify who and where 2A rights are honored, not with police that have not really weighed in on the issue.

  • John||

    This is my first comment on the thread, John. WTF ar you talking about? And I'm not against the NRA because they are pro-cop. I'm against the NRA because they are pro-powerful state,

    Which is another way of saying you are against them because they are too pro cop.

  • sarcasmic||

    John is proof that you don't have to be a genius to get through law school.

  • sloopyinca||

    That's your argument? Jesus tapdancing Christ.

    I'm against the expansion of the EPA because they are pro-powerful state. What does that have to do with cops?

    I'm against the expansion of the CARB because they are pro-powerful state. What does that have to do with cops?

    I'm against the expansion of the WoT and murderdrone policies because they are pro-powerful state. What does that have to do with cops?

    I'm against the expansion of our foreign aid to nations that do not care about the freedom and liberty of their citizens because those policies are pro-powerful state. What does that have to do with cops?

    Stop trying to jam your round peg in a square hole, John. There's a difference in anti-powerful state and anti-cop.

  • sarcasmic||

    There's a difference in anti-powerful state and anti-cop.

    It's not so much a matter of being anti-cop as being against unjust laws.

    When laws are just, there is less reason to fear those who enforce them.

  • John||

    Teachers are not "private citizens" sloopy. They are public employees. You are advocating for public employees being armed.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't think LaPierre engaged in pro-gun hysteria so much as law 'n' order hysteria.

    His main push was for more and more and more armed agents of the state, whether cops, retired cops, or teachers with "special training." Fuck that.

    All we need is to give armed citizens their Constitutional and human rights, which include being prepared to act in defense of themselves and others anywhere, including schools. Repeal the asinine gun-free school zones law and, if we must have a law, pass a law prohibiting schools (or damn near anywhere else) from being a gun-free zone by state or local ordinance or policy.

    Sure, LaPierre's speech was full of bogus emotion and tried to crank up the fear factor on school shootings to further his agenda of more and more and more armed agents of the state, but that's no pro-gun hysteria. That's pro-armed agent of the state hysteria.

  • John||

    I agree RC. LaPierre was too pro state and not really pro gun.

  • nicole||

    that's no pro-gun hysteria. That's pro-armed agent of the state hysteria.

    This

  • SIV||

    His main push was for more and more and more armed agents of the state, whether cops, retired cops, or teachers with "special training." Fuck that.

    LaPierre was offering the poll-tested solution in a broad appeal to people who are not necessarily "pro-gun". The NRA doesn't support "gun free zones" in schools.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't recall him saying we should repeal gun-free zones for schools. Did he?

    If the only people allowed to carry guns are agents of the state, its still a gun-free zone as far as I'm concerned.

  • nicole||

    He didn't say explicitly that they should be repealed, but he spoke against them: "Politicians pass laws for gun free school zones, they issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And, in doing so, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk."

  • squarooticus||

    I've tried to explain this to people on FB to no avail: for some reason they seem to think the NRA is libertarian, and every time I see this mistake made I point out the cognitive dissonance most NRA members have about not trusting the government but being generally pro-LE and pro-military.

  • wareagle||

    I've tried to explain this to people on FB to no avail:

    I think it safe to say that was your first mistake. Emoters will no be swayed by logic.

  • ||

    the organization is fighting anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria.

    Actually, I was listening to WLP on the radio the other day. I was extremely disappoint. He was deflecting the (undeserved) blame away from the NRA and onto others that have absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. Namely video game makers and Hollywood.

    Add this to his remarks about screening the mentally ill and putting armed guards in schools, I'd have to say he's fighting hysteria with hysteria.

    It's the whole red/blue oneupsmanship. The correct answer is:

    While these events are tragic, they are extremely rare and this is the price we pay for living in a free society. The NRA has no desire to debate gun rights further as we've been having this debate for the last 40 years. The answer hasn't changed and here are the facts...

    Team Red = Team Blue Neither has the balls to state the truth... only that which will ingratiate themselves to the talking heads.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^ The truth is bad things happen and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Neither side wants to be honest and say that. So they both come up with idiotic arguments for causality and of course a plan to "prevent this from happening again" because everything bad can be prevented if we just try hard enough.

  • $park¥||

    Sounds like what happened on 9/12/01.

  • ||

    If only we could persuade voters that sometimes the right thing to do is to do nothing.

  • sarcasmic||

    The correct answer is:

    The problem is gun-free zones. Rules against carrying guns will not stop someone who is intent on committing murder, but they will stop those who follow the rules from being able to defend themselves and others. Fix the problem by getting rid of the bad rules that caused it, not with more rules.

  • ||

    Not 100% sure teachers carrying would have stopped this. (Not that I'm against teachers carrying.)

    If the shooter intends to kill himself, will having armed teachers play into his decision to go to a school? Was the decision made because it's a gun free zone or because shooting kids is the most horrific thing imaginable and he wanted to ensure himself of 15 minutes of fame?

    Does deterrence work for a suicide? Perhaps, OTOH, it might in that he doesn't want to get popped before he can achieve a high body count.

    Either way, an armed teacher MIGHT reduce the body count.

  • sloopyinca||

    One thing is certain: an armed teacher or teachers would not have increased the body count.

  • John||

    Of course those teachers are public employees. That would make them armed agents of the state wouldn't it?

    Why do you like armed agents of the state so much?

  • sarcasmic||

    All Hail Red Tony!

    Prince of the Derps!

  • John||

    Are teachers not public employees sarcasmic? If you have them carry arms, would they not then be "armed agents of the state"? What is the difference between hiring an armed guard or telling the teachers to bring their own weapons?

    In a private school, they wouldn't be. But in a public school, an armed teacher is no different than an armed guard and just as much an armed agent of the state.

  • sloopyinca||

    First off, if it isn't in their job description to be armed, then they aren't armed guards. They are private citizens exercising their 2A Rights. When they are hired with the express purpose to defend, then they are armed guards. And that's what's being called for here. And you fucking know that.

  • John||

    When they are hired with the express purpose to defend, then they are armed guards.

    What is the point of them bringing weapons if not to protect themselves and the students? The moment they bring a weapon for the purpose of protecting their classes, they are "armed guards".

    Basically you are saying "armed cops in school rooms is okay, as long as they bring their own weapons and we call them teachers." Whatever. They are employees of the state who are armed and have those arms to protect the class. That makes them an armed guard.

  • sarcasmic||

    and have those arms to protect the class

    No. They have those arms to protect themselves. A concealed permit doesn't obligate you to protect everyone around you. It gives you the ability to legally protect yourself.

    False equivocation.

    You're just gagging away on the fallacies today, Red Tony.

  • ||

    Who here is asking they be hired with the express purpose to defend?

    That's EXACTLY the point. They aren't and shouldn't be hired to defend. Everyone here is asking they be allowed to voluntarily go to school armed.

    Fuck John, do you come here just to practice arguing? Are you saying any citizen who is armed is equal to LE or private security guard?

  • sloopyinca||

    What is the point of them bringing weapons if not to protect themselves and the students?

    Not sure, as it's none of my fucking business why they would choose to carry. I guess my answer is, "because they can and it's really none of my business."

    The moment they bring a weapon for the purpose of protecting their classes, they are "armed guards".

    They are whatever they consider themselves to be. I would hope they would still consider themselves teachers and would go about their jobs normally. Just because they are exercising a fundamental right doesn't change what or who they are.

    Basically you are saying "armed cops in school rooms is okay, as long as they bring their own weapons and we call them teachers."

    Do you make a habit out of putting incorrect words into other peoples' mouths John, or am I a special case?

    They are employees of the state who are armed and have those arms to protect the class. That makes them an armed guard.

    Funny that an employee of the government like you would think that just because another employee of the government exercises their constitutional rights while on the job, they are acting as an agent of the state in more than the capacity they were hired for. Exercising a right =/= being a state agent, dumbass.

    And you're a lawyer? I hope the government has you prosecuting drug crimes because your arguments would be a sure-fire way to keep people out of jail.

  • sarcasmic||

    What is the difference between hiring an armed guard or telling the teachers to bring their own weapons?

    Straw men are made of straw.

    There is a difference between telling teachers to bring weapons, and not prohibiting them from carrying weapons.

    not prohibiting != telling

    You're really living up to your nickname, Red Tony.

    I take great pleasure in helping you look like a fool and in helping you lose whatever little respect people might have for you.

    Keep it up.

  • sloopyinca||

    A private citizen that happens to be employed by the state =/= armed agent of the state, you stupid bastard.

    Would you say a guy that carries a pistol on his city's garbage route in rural Arkansas is an "armed agent of the state"? Would you say a woman working in the parks department of Phoenix, Arizona that carries because there are snakes is an "armed agent of the state"?

    Sorry, John. You're full of fucking shit on this one. You know what they mean when they call for "Armed Guards" and you know it's not about limiting 2A restrictions in schools. If so, they would be calling to let teachers carry, and none of them are calling specifically for that as the sole solution.

    Also, where is that citation to support your claim that "everyone who works on public property has law enforcement authority"?

  • John||

    Yeah, sloopy, they wouldn't ever deputize or give LE power to a teacher. What fucking planet do you live on? The moment teachers are allowed to carry weapons into a school, those teachers are going to be no different than the armed guards you guys are so afraid of.

    If you are terrified of a cop being at a school, I don't see why you would think a teacher being armed would be any better. They would be cheaper, but not immune to the dangers you guys are so terrified of, whatever they are.

    Your position really isn't that far off from the NRA. You just want the teachers to bring their own guns.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who used the word "terrified"?

    Oh yeah. Time for the goal posts to be moved so a new straw man can be attacked.

    Not prohibiting teachers from carrying as citizens is not the same as requiring them to carry as government employees.

    Holy fuck you're really earning your nickname today, Red Tony.

    Arguing in bad faith. Fellating fallacies. It's no surprise no one respects you.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, sloopy, they wouldn't ever deputize or give LE power to a teacher.

    That's not what you said. You said, and I quote: Because every school is a public school and everyone who works on public property has law enforcement authority.

    You need to support this bullshit claim.

    If you are terrified of a cop being at a school, I don't see why you would think a teacher being armed would be any better.

    I never said I was terrified of a cop being there. I just don't want my taxes confiscated to hire cops or other armed guards to sit at schools when a simpler solution would be to allow any school employee to exercise their 2A Rights while on public property. It's not about "fearing" or "hating" cops. It's about stopping the expansion of the state and expanding the 2A Rights guaranteed all citizens.

    They would be cheaper, but not immune to the dangers you guys are so terrified of, whatever they are.

    I don't even understand this gibberish so I can't respond.

    Your position really isn't that far off from the NRA. You just want the teachers to bring their own guns.

    No. I want teachers to be able to exercise their 2A Rights. Same goes for administrators, janitors, etc, and do not want my taxes going to support a further expansion of the state at the expense of private citizens' 2A Rights, which are currently stripped on the grounds of public schools.

  • John||

    No. I want teachers to be able to exercise their 2A Rights

    Which means you want them to bring guns. If you don't think any of them will do it, what is the point? Just be honest and say you want teachers to be armed.

    never said I was terrified of a cop being there. I just don't want my taxes confiscated to hire cops or other armed guards to sit at schools when a simpler solution would be to allow any school employee to exercise their 2A

    Which is exactly what I said at the beginning of this thread. So why are you arguing with me?

    I agree with you that hiring armed guards is a waste of money. But yours and my criticisms of the NRA are not Nick's. The NRA is wrong. But there is nothing about their position that is "hysterically pro gun". The problem is that they are not pro gun enough. They think only the professionals should be armed. No. Let people arm themselves. And you agree with that.

    Why you are defending reason here and arguing with someone who agrees with you is beyond me.

  • sarcasmic||

    Which means you want them to bring guns.

    No, dipshit.

    not prohibiting != mandating

    My local grocery store is not a gun free zone. Does that mean that their policy is for every employee to be armed?

    There is a big difference between taking away the "Gun Free Zone" sign, and requiring that teachers be armed.

    Fuck, did you go to the Tony school of logic?

  • sarcasmic||

    But there is nothing about their position that is "hysterically pro gun".

    Taking away the "Gun Free Zone" is not "hysterically pro gun".
    Chances are that not a single school employee will arm themselves. It's just that they will no longer be prohibited from doing so.

    Requiring an armed guard at every school means a gun in every school, guaranteed.

    That's a bit hysterical if you ask me.

  • sloopyinca||

    Please show where I defended reason here. Feel free to quote me.

    All I did was point out the the NRA's solution is hysterical. Here is my first post of the thread (in response to someone asking how or if their reaction was crazy or hysterical):

    I would since it wants me to pay to arm and station an armed agent of the state at every school. Allowing people to exercise their 2A rights is perfectly legitimate. Creating another bureaucracy or tax drain on citizens so the state can further entrench itself by placing armed guards at every school is fucking hysteria.

    Again, where is the defense of reason again? Where is my solution "the same as the NRA's", as you said earlier?

    And where is that cite I asked for to support your claim that all public employees have LE authority on public property? I'm still waiting on it.*

    *I haven't heard a whopper like that on here in a while.

  • John||

    I never claimed that you half wit. I was being sarcastic. Of course they wouldn't have LEO authority. That is the point. You could hire armed guards without them being cops or LEOs.

  • sarcasmic||

    You could hire armed guards without them being cops or LEOs.

    No you can't. That's in violation of federal law. Only LEOs can legally carry a firearm within 1000ft of a public school.

    What do you think will happen first? The feds pass legislation creating a new special class of guards who are allowed carry weapons on school grounds, or the schools hire LEOs who are already allowed to carry on school grounds?

    Are you digging in here just for the sake of being stubborn? Because you're really making yourself look like an ass.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not 100% sure teachers carrying would have stopped this.

    I never meant to imply that it would. Some things can't be stopped. Sometimes crazy people do crazy things. Getting rid of gun free zones means that maybe they'll pick someplace other than a school.

  • $park¥||

    Time to deploy the new meme: ERMAHGERD! CASMERTERINS!

  • Randian||

    Fetch me my walking stick and gin! I have Yokels to beat!

  • SIV||

    "Cosmotarian" actually fits in this instance. Nick is offering the NRA disclaimer for reasons of cultural association. Not that they are insufficiently pro-2nd Amendment.

  • Randian||

    He's offering it because Wayne LaPierre offered the Barbara Boxer position of armed guards in the schools. He also called for a national registry of the mentally ill.

    People keep ignoring those things. I wonder why?

  • wareagle||

    He also called for a national registry of the mentally ill.

    what could possibly go wrong with an idea like this?

  • juris imprudent||

    Works fine in workers paradise!

  • SIV||

    As I pointed out in a previous thread, LaPierre regurgitated every thing other than gun control that the Gallup poll said the public favored.The NRA is making sure the "national conversation" isn't solely focused on gun rights

    The NRA is a single-issue lobbying group. They aren't going to push for any of these "solutions". Just against one of them.

  • Randian||

    So? Obama regurgitates statist solutions that poll well, and I don't hear you making excuses for him.

  • Killazontherun||

  • Killazontherun||


    FIRST, I'd want the NRA not to write any more legislation. It's said the NRA leadership wrote the Gun Control Act of 1968 (before my time, if you'll recall). I know they wrote the Maryland Handgun Ban because they were afraid that something worse was in the works. Fear seems to be their principal motivation, not anger or determination. Invariably it steers them toward a submissive, repulsive "strategy" of doing the enemy's work before he can do it himself.
    SECOND, I'd want the NRA not to trade away any more rights it "thinks" are less important for those it "thinks" are more so. The leadership would find, if they ever asked, that their membership often disagrees with them. The "cop-killer" bullet fiasco comes to mind, where we got trivial reforms in a devil's bargain -- letting them make some bullets illegal -- that serves our enemies so well today that one particularly repellant and evil Senator has based the sunset of his career on it.

    TENTH . . . I'd want the NRA to abandon its strategically idiotic enthusiasm for government-controlled concealed carry . . . in favor of uncontrolled and legal "Vermont Carry". . . . the NRA wants your name on this piece of paper BEFORE you'll be allowed to exercise your unalienable individual, Constitutional, civil, and human rights. The NRA wants your age, address, phone, sex, race, social security number, photograph, and fingerprints as a cost of doing what the Framers meant you to do without all that.

  • sarcasmic||

    A law abiding citizen's "gun free zone" is a criminal's "target rich environment".

    Why is that so difficult to understand?

  • squarooticus||

    I like the recent use of "fake gun-free zones".

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Law abiding citzen gun free zone"

    or

    "Criminals only carry zone"

  • sarcasmic||

    Even retired cops who are exempt from most other prohibitions of self defense cannot legally carry in a school.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Defenseless victim zone"

  • squarooticus||

    "Victim disarmament zone" is better than all those. But "fake gun-free zones", with the emphasis on "fake", makes an important point and may prompt someone to ask you what you mean, in which case you explain that, in contrast to an actual gun-free zone, a fake gun-free zone is security theater that only pretends to be free of guns by telling everyone to keep guns out. Actual gun-free zones have things like metal detectors.

  • sarcasmic||

    Actual gun-free zones require armed men to enforce the rules, and thus are not gun-free.

  • Shirley Knott||

    I'll be way more impressed if Reynolds speaks up against the morons who are agitating for Piers Morgan to be expelled from the country for his ridiculously rude remarks to a gun rights supporter.
    Eviscerating the first amendment in support of the second is lunacy.
    But it's what I've come to expect from all sides in this nonsense -- and is the primary reason I believe no one should be 'in charge' or 'in control'.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Morgan does still have his right of free speech. He does not have the right to stay in this nation. He is more than welcome to go back to the hellhole of the UK. We should do all we can to help him get back there.

  • wareagle||

    what are you, the INS? Provided his paperwork is square, even a moron like Morgan has a right to stay, just like every H1B holder who is here working. But it's more satisfying to cherry pick the laws you like, isn't it?

  • ||

    Apparently in Mallortopia, it's OK to use laws to exact revenge on people who offend you.

  • John||

    Being a douchebag is not grounds for deportation sadly.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Being unemployed can be.

  • R C Dean||

    If he loses his job, he loses his green card. Not sure if he has a grace period to land another one.

  • John||

    If you are convicted of drug possession you are supposed to lose your green card. Yet, Andrew Sullivan still has one. So I doubt Morgan would be deported.

  • wareagle||

    I doubt he loses his job for spouting the CNN-blessed-and-issued talking point on guns. This is the same network that pays Soledad. Its tolerance for buffoonery is boundless.

  • nicole||

    Hell, it's the same network that pays Piers Morgan, even more to the point. It's not like this is the first time he's been a sick moron about something.

  • John||

    Nicole,

    Morgan ran fake photos of British soldiers abusing prisoners. And the NYT hired a guy from the BBC who covered up for a child molester for decades.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    So now you are dictating other's columns? Nothing stopping you from writing to USA Today on such a subject is there now?

  • carol||

    Reynolds is under no obligation to "speak up against the morons who are agitaing for Piers Morgan to be expelled...". Further, Morgan is free to say whatever he wishes, he is not free from the consequences of his speech. That said, we do not deport people for being ignorant assholes (or much of anything else, it seems). I do wonder, though, why Morgan would want to stay in a country that he so obviously holds in low esteem.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Eviscerating the first amendment in support of the second is lunacy.

    I'm not advocating Subject Morgan shut up. I'm advocating he do it outside my country. He has no constitutional right to be here.

  • wareagle||

    He has no constitutional right to be here.

    maybe I am missing something but by this reckoning, neither do about three generations of folks who have come to the US.

  • entropy||

    Eviscerating the first amendment in support of the second is lunacy.

    But deporting Piers Morgan is really funny.

    Plus it has the same chance of actually happening as Obama legalizing full auto AKs.

  • wareagle||

    a being a clueless moron required to be in the media or is it a result of too much time in: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/.....index.html

    So criminals know A) where to potentially steal guns and B) who is not going put up much of a fight. Sharp, crackerjack reporting there. Meanwhile, there is the guy who lured in the firemen - an ex-con who hardly came across the weapon he used legally. But, let's keep pretending that simplistic solutions are the answer to anything.

  • Brett L||

    Eh. I've got a "this property protected by Smith & Wesson" sign by the front door. Anyone driving by will know I own a gun. Its rather the point.

  • wareagle||

    A still holds. We're talking criminals, not rational human beings. Unless you have a sentry posted 24/7, there is a reasonable chance of someone believing they can break in and steal said Smith & Wesson. Alternatively, B still holds.

  • SIV||

    Would Nick ever consider writing the words: "I'm no fan of the ACLU"?

    They engage in all sorts of anti-liberty activity but if I was discussing one of the many issues they are on "the right side" even the thought of such a disclaimer wouldn't arise.

  • SIV||

    "the right side of"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Remind me of the anti-liberty activity of the ACLU please. Their lone mission is to uphold the Bill of Rights against the government.

  • John||

    They support affirmative action and thus publicly endorse discrimination against white's Asians.

    You are the party of hate, division, racism and murder. Live with it you fucked up little sock puppet troll.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Equal protection clause, dumbass. One could argue that AA is overreach (which I think it is) but the principle is Constitutional.

  • John||

    Yeah, nothing says "equal protection" like discriminating against whites and Asians because they are white and Asian.

  • Jordan||

    The notion that government-enforced discrimination is constitutional is laughable. The fact that the courts have said it is so does not make it so.

  • Randian||

    Remind me of the anti-liberty activity of the ACLU please.

    Agitating against the First Amendment a la anti-Citizens-United activity.

    It's unforgivable in my book.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The ACLU fully supports Citizens United.

    We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

    http://www.aclu.org/free-speec.....ens-united

    Fail.

  • Randian||

    Read the entire statement and stop lying:

    . Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

    They want more public financing and soft money bans. Fuck them.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Public financing is not anti free speech.

  • Randian||

    What are 'reasonable limits on campaign contributions"?

    What is a "ban(s) on coordination"?

    Violations of the First Amendment, that's what.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Today's contribution limit is $2300 per candidate. No one is challenging that on free speech grounds.

    The rules are a farce as they are.

  • Randian||

    Today's contribution limit is $2300 per candidate. No one is challenging that on free speech grounds.

    Coordination between a campaign and a PAC requires a phone call. You and the ACLU want to ban those phone calls.

    That's anti free-speech. Own your own position.

  • wareagle||

    maybe not, but supporting "limits on campaign contributions" sure is. When the ACLU decides to attack the money laundering scheme knows as union cash to Dems, I'll take it more seriously.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 12.26.12 @ 10:46AM |#
    "Public financing is not anti free speech."

    Dipshit posted this! Really, he did.
    Dipshit, why is it you feel compelled to demonstrate your idiocy to the world?

  • Ted S.||

    Why should I be forced to fund the political speech of candidates whose views I strenuously disagree with?

    Puvlic campaign financing is morally wicked.

  • Jordan||

    The ACLU on Heller:

    The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
  • juris imprudent||

    Their lone mission is to uphold the Bill of Rights

    Except the 2nd - they just sorta ignored that.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Meanwhile, there is the guy who lured in the firemen - an ex-con who hardly came across the weapon he used legally"

    An ex-con who should have still been a current con - or have been executed for murder ( he killed his own grandmother with a hammer). Either way he wouldn't have been burning down houses or shooting firemen.

  • John||

    How the fuck did someone who killed their grandmother with a hammer ever get out of jail?

  • SIV||

    Maybe they needed his cell for a heroin dealer.

  • John||

    That or for someone they caught looking at child porn. Seriously, anyone who kills their mother, grandmother, or a child is basically insane and should never be let out of custody.

  • nicole||

    News stories seem strangely light on details about that case...

  • LTC(ret) John||

    If he was in IL, he would have had his sentence reduced, been let out and feted!

    /former Govs Ryan and Blago

  • Bardas Phocas||

    He was just an excitable boy.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eUsSXXc8wU

  • Brett L||

    Good song.

  • Randian||

    Bang Bang Maxwell's Silver Hammer
    Came down upon her head
    doo doo doo doo

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Grandma got her head caved by a Stanley
    Sittin' there in her house Xmas eve
    People say there's no such thing as hammers
    But as for me and Granpa, we believe

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    At best, they're blaming the NRA because the actual perpetrator is no longer around to take responsibility, and people who think with their heart need closure at any cost.

    Most likely, however, these people are crass opportunists who were waiting for something like this, who were spring-loaded ready to fire off accusations at any organization or individual not firmly in the camp that realizes state agents are the only ones responsible enough to use deadly weapons.

  • John||

    At best, they're blaming the NRA because the actual perpetrator is no longer around to take responsibility, and people who think with their heart need closure at any cost.

    That is part of it. People now have this horribly Marxist crudely materialistic view of the world. People honestly think that everything that happens has a direct cause and can be explained and blamed on someone or something. And that is really unhealthy and leads to them to think some pretty stupid and crazy things. Whether you want to call it fate, will of God, or shit happens, you need some humility and the knowledge that you are not going to be able to understand or explain some things.

  • $park¥||

    I really, truly, honestly hope that you're including yourself in the group you call 'people.'

  • John||

    Are you drunk this morning Sparky? Did you forget to take your meds? You are making even less sense than usual.

  • $park¥||

    I can see that your self-awareness hasn't reached the level of including yourself in the group.

  • John||

    Gee you are really original sparky. I have never heard the "I know what you are but what am I" defense. You must have though really hard to come up with that one.

  • $park¥||

    John, you are an evil troll with half a brain that you don't even know how to use properly. It makes me a little sad that there are people like you in the world, because it would be a better place if there weren't. But even in spite of the screaming of incompetents like yourself, life goes on. There are those who will fight tooth and nail to absolutely oppose all that you stand for and that gives me some hope for the future.

  • John||

    Did someone named "John" beat you up and take your lunch money Sparky? You really seem to have lost your mind today.

    If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise spare us your righteous indignation over all of the things you imagine me to believe because it is really boring.

  • $park¥||

    My indignation has nothing to do with my imagination. I don't need to dream up your evil when you put it on display regularly.

    You really seem to have lost your mind today.

    No, I've finally just gotten fed up with your idiocy. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and unfortunately yours carry just as much weight as everybody's.

    If you have something to say, say it.

    I did, I just had to get it out of my system.

  • John||

    I love you too Sparky.

  • $park¥||

    I love you too Sparky.

    That's kinda creepy, should I be concerned?

  • juris imprudent||

    Are you a chubby chick?

    Otherwise I wouldn't be worried unless Warty said it.

  • tarran||

    I don't think it's materialism per se that's the problem.

    I think it's growing up with an expectation that they should never experience fear or discomfort and with an utter lack of experience with the same.

    Think about the experiences that made you an adult instead of a child. Ask that of most people, and they will cite experience with adversity, citing things like boot camp, deaths, standing up to bullies, striving to win a trophy etc.

    Remove those experiences, and often you will end up with a child in an adult's body.

    These people are casting about for any totem that can give them a handle on the feeling of vulnerability engendered by other people being armed, because it gets rid of the discomfort quickly and without change on their part. And it's because of childishness, not IMHO a lack of spirituality.

  • John||

    I agree. But part of being a child is thinking that you can control the world and thinking that all harms can be prevented if we just try hard enough. That is really just a crude materialistic view of the world.

  • $park¥||

    I don't think you should use words that you don't know the meaning of.

  • John||

    Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean the rest of us don't.

  • Randian||

    I actually have to somewhat side with John here. The mechanistic/materialistic view says that if you can just get the right set of inputs then you'll get the desired outputs, and the standard moderate/leftist thinks the inputs come from the State (as our head/brain) and the outputs come from the lesser organs of Society (us, as the arms, legs, feet, mouths and hands of the State/Society).

  • wareagle||

    if you can just get the right set of inputs then you'll get the desired outputs,

    a bit of Systems Theory in the a-m. Not being disagreeable here but the broader view of this considers the outside environment and its impact on inputs/outputs, the possibility of multiple means to reach the same end, and so forth. If the world would just cooperate with the leftists and not be so full of individuals and of their variables, think how much better things would be.

  • Randian||

    Yes, but to ape tarran a bit, he's right in that some people view the world so simplistically that they are practically Animists. It's incredible, really, how little value most have for individualism on a metaphysical level.

  • John||

    Randian,

    That is because freedom and individualism are frustrating and uncontrollable. And that fact is writ large in circumstances like the Newtown shooting. Written that large, it drives some people mad. We have 20 dead children and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it.

  • wareagle||

    there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it.

    and yet, it is taken as an article by faith by many - including some you would expect to know better - that someone, namely govt, can do something about it.

    Pick your media outlet and not a single talking head will say something like "this knee-jerk belief that only govt action can solve broader problems borders on religious zealotry. I understand the emotion that leads people to say "someone ought to do something" but no one ever seems to question of who should do what, and will it actually do anything."

  • tarran||

    That is because freedom and individualism are frustrating and uncontrollable.

    Ain't that the truth! Over the weekend, I got to listen to several people tell me what I needed and what I didn't.

    I should convert the Denis Leary speech from Demolition Man into a ring tone.

  • John||

    I like that idea Tarran. The whole Newtown thing is incredibly infuriating. I understand why the mob has its dander up. Some fucking pathetic little aspy living in his mom's basement got angry and killed a bunch of kids. It is unfathomable. You want to do something? But there is nothing to do. What are you going to do? Shoot all the aspy's? Declare a police state and lock everyone up? What you do is nothing. And that is a hard thing for people to accept.

  • tarran||

    Personally, I think they are being more animistic than materialistic, but I take your point.

  • Randian||

    Yes, "shit happens" is the response people deserve, but not the one they need right now.

    Unfortunately.

  • tarran||

    Well, look who is in favor of giving people what they need instead of what they deserve... ;)

  • Randian||

    You didn't hear me say that, did you?

  • Ted S.||

    Hitler?

  • wareagle||

    People honestly think that everything that happens has a direct cause and can be explained and blamed fixed by govt edict on someone or something.

  • RBS||

    I guess Nick decided he wanted to troll the commentariat for some post christmas shits and giiggles.

  • waaminn||

    OK wow, now there is a dude that really seems to know whats going on!

    www.Anon-is.tk

  • The Late P Brooks||

    LaPierre is, among other things, a badge bunny. He loves him some men in uniform, authorized by the state to harass, beat, maim or kill citizens at will.

    Call me crazy, but paying cops to sit around sucking their thumbs and PERFORMING NOT ONE SINGLE USEFUL FUNCTION in the completely ridiculous expectation that they might some day heroically prevent a school invasion mass murder is stupid, and should be mocked and ridiculed without mercy.

    At least give the fucking worthless baboons a broom.

  • John||

    Arm the cleaning staff. I bet you a good hard working custodian is likely to be a better shot and much less likely to be a criminal than your typical cop.

  • Ted S.||

    That reminds me of the introduction to The Phenix City Story.

  • R C Dean||

    The David Gregory "illegal magazine" kerfuffle reminds me of some (mildly controversial) advice I gave our ER staff.

    They were wondering what to do with illegal drugs they found on patients (which is pretty common). They had been giving it to hospital security to hold in case the cops wanted it/we wanted to rat out the patient.

    I reminded them that it was illegal for anyone (not a cop) to possess drugs, and there really weren't any exceptions for "I was planning to turn it over, honest, officer". By giving it to someone else, they were exposing themselves to being charged with distribution. I told them the only safe thing to do was flush it immediately. Intentions really don't matter when it comes to possessing prohibited items, as I hope Gregory finds out, good and hard.

  • John||

    I hope so too. That magazine was contraband. What if Gregory had held up a piece of child pornography or an ounce of heroin, would people not want him prosecuted then? If not why not? Are some contraband less illegal than others? I seemed to have missed that memo if they are.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Good point.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm pretty sure the "Don't you know who I am?" defense is all David Gregory will need.

    Kind of like the "investigators" who went to other states for the express purpose of making straw purchases of handguns for Mayor Bloomberg. Intentions are a sufficient defense, as long as your papers are in order, and have been signed by the right person.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Papers, please!

  • Sevo||

    On topic: Always amusing, the SF Chron cites a study by "a San Francisco organization" to prove tougher laws mean fewer deaths.
    I'm not kidding; that is the entire cite for the source of the "study" (scare quotes intended):
    http://www.sfgate.com/crime/ar.....145605.php

  • John||

    Remember, we should leave journalism to the professionals. And I love how "San Fransisco organization" is hyperlinked, not to the group whoever they are, but to a search on SFgate.com for "San Fransisco and organization".

  • Sevo||

    I clicked that link several times before I finally became convinced they published that bit of treacle.

  • Randian||

    They cite this at the end:

    Here.

  • Sevo||

    You have better search-wu than me; didn't see it.
    Wonder why they didn't link it at the first mention...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    a study by "a San Francisco organization" to prove tougher laws mean fewer deaths.

    "An organization" = Top Men.

  • Caleb Turberville||

  • Caleb Turberville||

    By the way, I'm sure Indy isn't a registered gun owner.

  • sloopyinca||

    On the Piers Morgan thingy. I wonder if the lefties espousing his "free speech rights" were equally outraged when our fearless President murderdroned Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, for exercising his 1A rights. Or how about when he ordered the murderdroning of al-Awlaki's 16 year old son for likewise doing nothing more than exercising his 1A rights?

    Both are despicable humans. Neither deserve to have their 1A Rights taken away. Of course, only one (and his son) were murdered for it.

  • John||

    The Left also has no problem in calling for people to lose their jobs over holding views they don't like.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Piers Morgan isn't even the most despicable person employed by CNN. Now, could we discuss deporting Nancy Grace?

  • sloopyinca||

    I thought they canned her or at least banished her to HLN. But yes she is a vile and despicable human being.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Before it went to its current format, Headline News used to be a useful way for me to catch on the day's top news in less than 30 minutes. Like all things I love, though, it was re-tooled for the lowest common denominator of viewers.

  • sloopyinca||

    ^^This^^ HLN used to report the news so fast that there was little spin on it. You could go "around the world in 30 minutes" and get a good dose of what was going on. Now it's nothing but Nancy Grace and Joan Velez-Mitchell-type shows.

    I can honestly say that I was cheering for Casey Anthony just so I could watch the reaction by Nancy Grace. Not sure that was right or wrong, but I really wanted to see her go nuts on set and do something memorable. Alas, I was disappointed that all she did was play the dead baby card.

  • oliver||

    Remember when DHS bought all that ammunition & no one knew why?

    Chilling article with some new insight on the Sandy Hook shootings and more: http://www.canadafreepress.com.....icle/52005

  • sloopyinca||

    Canada Free Press: All The News That's Fit To Print Censor.

    The media blackout on Benghazi and CFP's coverage is enough to make me trust what is in this article as my default position.

  • tarran||

    Chilling? Or insane?

    I kept finding myself asking cui bono at the "trust me I saw planning docs" comments by the insider, and not coming up with any.

    It's just pandering to get eyeballs on advertisements.

  • iggy||

    Yeah, that article doesn't exactly seem legit.

    'Okay, so I saw these 'documents' which imply that Sandy Hook was a government sponsored shooting in order to get gun control on the table. There will a second shooting in order to force the issue, at which point the swat teams and brown shirts shall be at the ready!'

    Articles like that require some sort of proof outside of an 'insider's' hearsay.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement