Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games)

damn_registrars's Journal: And who will pay for that? 14

Journal by damn_registrars
So the NRA wants every school in the country to have an armed guard, because in their fantasy world one guy with a pistol can prevent any number of nutjobs from coming in with a semi-automatic rifle.

OK, that is strange logic. Even worse, though, the NRA wants congress to pay for their fantasy. Some estimates have said that one full-time armed security agent could cost $80k per year.

Strange, I thought the NRA usually courted the people who want Washington to spend less money. Now they want how many billions for this little adventure?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

And who will pay for that?

Comments Filter:
  • I feel for the majority of you south of the border who do have some sanity.

    NRA only has 3,000,000 members as opposed to the 300,000,000+ other Americans, if the sane people can get their acts together and organize themselves you could beet them to a bloodied pulp on this issue.
    • We don't do actual budgeting anymore, our government is fundamentally unserious, and "Zimbabwe" Ben Bernanke just prints more money.
      What is kind of funny is the sequence of:
      1. Tragedy occurs in town X.
      2. Constitutional rights or unrelated citizens are "targeted".
      3. Group of freely associating citizens (NRA) is singled out for abuse. " the sane people can get their acts together and organize themselves you could beet them to a bloodied pulp [slashdot.org]". "And who will pay for that" pile of vegetables, indeed, oh "peace-loving"
      • Group of freely associating citizens (NRA) proposes a common-sense solution. Did you read LaPierre's remarks? I'll do a separate JE, as he makes a point so lucid as to mock pretty much the entire Left.

        The NRA has tremendous power over anyone with an (R) after their name, and many who do not as well. Considering how few members they have relative to the country's population as a whole, their power is enormous.

        funding things and stuff.

        What you're conveniently ignoring though is that very few groups propose anything that costs a significant amount of money, and this proposal could cost billions per year. Yet because they have a significant part of congress at their beck-and-call, they don't have to worry about the economic cost

        • The NRA has tremendous power over anyone with an (R) after their name

          No, they don't.

          Yet because they have a significant part of congress at their beck-and-call, they don't have to worry about the economic cost.

          Like a labor union or something? The fundamental problem afoot is that Congress is worrying about individual education. Our political system is like a poorly factored software system. If you objection is that everything is done in main(), why not delegate some logic. There must be at least 50 other p

          • The NRA has tremendous power over anyone with an (R) after their name

            No, they don't.

            You would be hard pressed to find a republican in congress currently who doesn't put their NRA score on their campaign mailers. The score really boils down to how much that congress critter bends over the to NRA's beck and call.

            That is power.

            Yet because they have a significant part of congress at their beck-and-call, they don't have to worry about the economic cost.

            Like a labor union or something?

            Like a labor union 40 years ago, perhaps. The unions have steadily lost power for at least that long, while the NRA has been gaining power. NRA membership stands at around 3million, labor union membership around 14.8 million [bls.gov], yet the smaller group has had far m

            • I'd like to know what is that you are saying comes from "overly concentrated power".

              Pre-Woodrow Wilson, we had federal, state, and local government. The capitalist horse dragged the cart of State.
              Progress has meant a swapping of cart and horse. Specifically, the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th & 17th Amendments, and the freezing of the House of Representatives size as of 1910 have had the cart of federal 'experts' trying to drag the economic horse. Sure, we had a lot of slope to work with, especially af

      • If it's decided an armed guards in every school is necessary than it'll also be necessary to have to them in every Daycare, church, theatre, and hospital across the country.

        Police walking around with "assault style" weapons "guarding" the population. Where have I seen that image before, oh yeah, the middle east. America's going to look really good dressed up as Afghanistan.

        It's going to be a police state. Who's going to pay for it all? tax payers, hundreds of billions of dollars. How do you raise that
        • Holy missing the point, batman! The point is not guns, the point is that "gun free zones" can turn locations into abattoirs.
          • Speaking of missing the point, When there are no gun free zones crazy people are still going to go on shooting sprees. One armed cop isn't going to stop that, they'll just be the first target.
        • You guys are going to be paying more taxes than we do here in Canada just so you can have an illusion of being safer because a cop is walking around with a gun.

          Most Americans are already paying more in taxes than the average Canadian, we just disguise it to make ourselves feel better about the consequences of regressive taxation.

          Glad I don't live there any more, things are about to get really crazy.

          Nah, they've been really crazy for some time. This is just crazy version 12.0 (or so). We're getting ready to add more guns to the situation to encourage people to use guns less. And of course, because its about guns the price doesn't matter - we'll just cut it out of the education budget and it will all balance out.

          • Some of the suggestions I've read in other forums suggest taxing the hell out of gun purchases, licences, bullets, etc... So the people who want to own them will essentially pay for the armed guards required to keep the population safe from them. I doubt that would work though because you know taxing firearms is going to infringe on their "right" to own a gun.
            • Some of the suggestions I've read in other forums suggest taxing the hell out of gun purchases, licences, bullets, etc

              Chris Rock made a similar suggestion: [goodreads.com]

              I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars ... five thousand dollars per bullet ... You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders. Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we'd say, 'Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.'

              And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. 'Man I would blow your fucking head off ... if I could afford it.' 'I'm gonna get me another job, I'm going to start saving some money, and you're a dead man. You'd better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway.'

              Of course, that isn't a particularly popular idea right now.

              I doubt that would work though because you know taxing firearms is going to infringe on their "right" to own a gun.

              There is a bigger problem than that, though. Even if we quadrupled (or more) the price of every gun and round of ammunition this afternoon, we would still have millions of accessible guns and who knows how many rounds of ammo in private hands. Of course, the private market would then explode as people would be selling their guns for profit.

              The notion of "licenses" is of course a separate matter. I'm no

            • by gmhowell (26755)

              So only the wealthy and powerful can have access to firearms? There's some quality limousine liberalism for ya.

              • I agree with that, On the other hand it's not typically the wealthy that are a problem.

                A friend of mine from China told me this once and I sort of agree with him. "It's not the people with money you need to be afraid of. They're happy and will do what their told to keep that. The poor are the people you need to be afraid of. When you have nothing to lose, you'll do anything just to feed yourself."

                The other issue I have are that people seem to be completely opposed to doing something as simple as just no

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.

Working...