HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sen. Boxer proposes deplo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:36 AM

 

Sen. Boxer proposes deploying National Guard at schools

Federal funds would be made available to deploy National Guard troops at schools under legislation introduced Wednesday by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in response to last week’s mass slaying at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

The Save Our Schools Act would leave it to governors to decide whether to call out the National Guard and how to use troops around schools. "Is it not part of the national defense to make sure that your children are safe?" Boxer said at Capitol Hill press conference.

Boxer also introduced the School Safety Enhancement Act, which would increase funding for a federal grants program, from $30 million to $50 million, to help fund school security measures, such as installation of metal detectors and surveillance cameras.

The bills are among the first of what is expected to be a wave of legislative proposals intended to curb gun violence, including tougher gun control and new measures aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-sen-boxer-national-guard-schools-20121219,0,7530900.story


Sorry, I think this is freaking nuts.

72 replies, 4130 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sen. Boxer proposes deploying National Guard at schools (Original post)
HiPointDem Dec 2012 OP
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #1
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #6
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #17
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #34
alp227 Dec 2012 #65
MrSlayer Dec 2012 #69
Drunken Irishman Dec 2012 #2
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #3
still_one Dec 2012 #4
graham4anything Dec 2012 #7
Angry Dragon Dec 2012 #19
still_one Dec 2012 #30
graham4anything Dec 2012 #44
still_one Dec 2012 #48
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #35
graham4anything Dec 2012 #42
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #52
graham4anything Dec 2012 #55
Sherman A1 Dec 2012 #62
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #72
graham4anything Dec 2012 #5
Whovian Dec 2012 #16
graham4anything Dec 2012 #18
Sherman A1 Dec 2012 #63
JohLast Dec 2012 #21
still_one Dec 2012 #32
Sherman A1 Dec 2012 #64
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #37
exboyfil Dec 2012 #8
intaglio Dec 2012 #12
exboyfil Dec 2012 #14
xchrom Dec 2012 #9
aandegoons Dec 2012 #10
aandegoons Dec 2012 #11
PuraVidaDreamin Dec 2012 #13
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #15
formercia Dec 2012 #23
HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #28
AngryOldDem Dec 2012 #20
Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #22
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #26
Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #47
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #50
Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #58
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #60
Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #68
OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #71
milestogo Dec 2012 #24
n2doc Dec 2012 #25
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #27
Iggy Dec 2012 #29
LineReply .
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #31
MindPilot Dec 2012 #33
Brickbat Dec 2012 #36
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #38
Fearless Dec 2012 #39
treestar Dec 2012 #40
Dash87 Dec 2012 #41
99Forever Dec 2012 #43
shireen Dec 2012 #45
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #46
duffyduff Dec 2012 #49
SummerSnow Dec 2012 #51
julian09 Dec 2012 #53
99Forever Dec 2012 #56
Bennyboy Dec 2012 #54
LWolf Dec 2012 #57
Bigmack Dec 2012 #59
BumRushDaShow Dec 2012 #61
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #66
cecilfirefox Dec 2012 #67
Raine Dec 2012 #70

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:45 AM

1. Lunacy.

 

Senator Boxer is better than this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:21 AM

6. Actually no, she isn't n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:31 AM

17. Apparently not.

 

She's supposed to be better than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:49 PM

34. Sheer demagoguery and really beneath the Boxer I knew

 

and respected. I'll be calling office on Wednesday to express strong disapproval - SIGH!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:49 PM

65. If Fiorina won in '10, she would've written a bill with LaPierre's speech verbatim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:18 PM

69. No doubt.

 

That doesn't make this any better though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:49 AM

2. C'mon, Barbara. That's just insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:00 AM

3. pathetic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:13 AM

4. what an idiot. They did such a great job at Kent State

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:35 AM

7. this is a dumb analogy. Smearing an entire group over one incident that is unrelated any way reeks

 

This is mass murder. Done weekly or monthly.
that was a mistake.

Totally different situations and is a smear, same way billions of people go through airports and are safe thanks to the work of the great TSA agents, yet 3 people with cameras claimed something happened and the entire work force of 9 to 5 99%ers are maligned because of 3 set ups with cameras.

I welcome the National guard all across America armed and ready.

Having soldiers in this job, as compared to Paul Blart inept Zimmermans is welcome.

Why should Zimmy in Florida have a gun? And shoot innocent blacks coward style?

No, I trust the FEDS and Eric Holder to do what is right. Never been wrong yet.

and over Zimmerman and those type armed groups.

BTW-NYC had an unarmed citizen group that worked very well. The Guardian Angels (and they are still there.)

And kids would not fear those in the National Guard uniform.

It would be a standard uniform, not the Zimmy types of the world, where you can't tell if that is a killer or a good person.

So that is another good reason.

Maligning them for one incident 50 years is like maligning the greatest Democratic president we had in that time period and losing everything because people sold LBJ down the river and it directlly led to all the bad that happened, and this supreme court that enabled the NRA
and the current gun ruling.
Had Dems reelected LBJ, the court never would have turned rightwing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:41 AM

19. ...........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:36 AM

30. No it was not intended as a smear. When you have a military force mixed with civilians, there is

the potential for more harm then good.

Putting the Guard in a situation like that is asking for trouble.

This isn't sending them into a area to prevent looting, storm damage, or natural disaster, this is putting them in a situation where they were never intended.

First of all, my criticism was entirely directed at Barbara Boxer. Second, the National Guard is not intended to be policeman at public schools throughout the country. Third, putting them into a situation where 99% of the time there nothing will happen, only increases the probability that an accident can occur, and then the media and press will go ballistic

I do not want any military or non-military group in our public schools.

I am not sure what bringing LBJ has to do with this discussion, since Nixon was President at the time, however, as far as Johnson being the greatest Democratic president we had in that time period, that would only be for the domestic social issues he tackled. His escalation of the war in Viet Nam was a disgrace, and responsible of the deaths of tens of thousands of people in a war that should never have been escalated. In fact that war was the tragedy of the Johnson administration, and the reason he did not seek a third term. However, I will concede that the social issues he succeeded in, does out weigh the Viet Nam war, and make him one of the greatest Democratic presidents.

In addition, the period that LBJ was president was different than today. The make-up of congress would be impossible for LBJ, as powerful as he was to persuade. For Civil Rights to pass, LBJ had a harder time with the southern democrats than with the republicans at that time, but it was his influence and power over the Democrats that worked.

I do not believe a military force should be in our public schools. I also do not believe the TSA comparison is valid. The TSA is trained to do their work as a full time 365 day job. Are you suggesting that the National Guard have "protecting" our schools as a full time job? That was never the intent for the national guard.

The National Guard is a reserve military force, not a force to guard our public schools


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:42 PM

44. then we can train 100,000 or a million to do just so(but of course strong background checks needed)

 

It can be the service job(non military) that our President did ask for a few years back.

If not mistaken, we all didn't like the mercanaries Cheney hired, not the soldiers in the 2 wars
recently.

(as for the Vietnam war, IMHO any president would have done the same including JFK or RFK but only LBJ could have beaten Nixon, and Bobby would still have been alive in 1972 to win then. Remember it was no sure thing Bobby would have prevailed under the different rules in the party at that time as the nominee anyhow. We all hoped so, but who knows it was not guaranteed and there were people who didn't want him to be in 1968(be it Nixon's or whomever in either party.)

and the war did not end til way into Nixon's term and LBJ did not start it, but he did not want to lose it(I do admit). That is what happens during a war.It's like a fever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:15 PM

48. I agree with the background checks, but spending money for training a police force to guard our

public schools will never be passed. Assault weapons must be taken out of the hands of the civilians. The argument that only the criminals will have the weapons fails because the fact is the people that commit these types of crimes are not organized criminals. They have problems no doubt, but most do not have criminal records. In fact organized criminals do NOT want civilians involved in their crimes for the most part. That only calls attention to them, which is not what they want. The mass shootings on the other hand do want the publicity.

To your other point, I do not know if you were around during the Viet Nam War or not, but regardless, I highly recommend the movie The Fog Of War. JFK did NOT want to escalate that war, and LBJ ended up doing that. RFKs whole campaign was about getting us out of Viet Nam

Either way, that is all for historians and speculators

My whole original point was that they should have never put the National Guard at Kent State. It put the Guard in a position that was unfair to them, as would putting them into public schools




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:53 PM

35. LBJ lied to the American people repeatedly and with malice aforethought about

 

Vietnam, both before the Nov. '64 elections and after.

"People sold LBJ down the river". Um, would that be the Mekong River?

Read Stanley Karnow's 'Vietnam" before you spew your bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:36 PM

42. Irrelevant. LBJ would have beat Nixon both before and after Bobby

 

and one assumes Bobby would have had the nomination, which is a bad assumption because TPTB also didn't want Bobby so HHH might still have been the nominee

and both before and after LBJ was stronger than HHH and would have known how to beat nixon

dirty race, race, but he knew how to win

and that is the key

Nixon was one thing but look what followed because of Nixon

Bush/Bush/Jeb coming/Reagan/Ford

Which would you have preferred?

And the war didn't end for years after 1968 anyhow.
And all of them would have done the same thing. It was a Kennedy person who lied to LBJ after all.

(and Kennedy wiretapped King).

and had LBJ done that, Bobby would have been alive and run and won in 1972 and 1976
so you can't just say yada yada and not change everything else too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:46 PM

52. I can't argue with run-on sentences and sentence fragments. Who

 

exactly are you alleging "sold LBJ down the river"?

LBJ lied, yes LIED, to the American people repeatedly and with malice aforethought before and after the November 1964 election. No amount of your haiku-style argumentation will change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:08 PM

55. the Democrats who let a wedge issue get in the way and caused the republicans to win in 1968

 

LBJ would have won

Humphrey lost. He was not a good choice becausse he had all of the baggage of LBJ, yet nothing to separate himself from LBJ but wasn't LBJ
You can't assume Bobby would have been the nominee...back then it was not just primaries other considerations might have led to HHH anyhow if Bobby were alive

LBJ would have beaten Nixon. It would have been fun to see it, and Bobby would have been alive later on.

but the fracture of the party caused the loss.

shame because it took 50 years from LBJ to Obama over what?

and sold down the river is a phrase. It has nothing to do with the wedge issue of Vietnam, which in retrospect is just that, a wedge issue.
Eisenhower started it
JFK first expanded it
and there is nothing to say but words that he would have ended it
How exactly?

It's great for everyone on all sides to idolize JFK and Bobby. Because they aren't around and because to think they might have done something different, instead of dealing with everything and the war gotta win.

Remember, what was landing on the moon but part of the game.

We had to win at all costs
So why would JFK have lost and left? Nope he wouldn't. We were in a cold war with Russia at the time, and would have looked weak.

It is what it is

Why hold a grudge anyhow all these years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:54 PM

62. Precisely

As many good things that LBJ may or may not have done in his time in office, he did indeed lie to the American public about Vietnam and I a not certain he would have beat Nixon in 68 as is claimed elsewhere in this sub thread. There was not a pleasant mood in the country at that time as I recall having lived through the period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:18 AM

72. I used the phrase 'malice aforethought' with reason, as the tape recordings

 

made of his phone calls with, among others, Richard Russell of Georiga, reveal that LBJ knew the war was unwinnable as early as mid-1965 and still persisted in the inevitable escalations the Big Macs (McNamara, McGeorge Bundy) demanded and the necessary prevarication to the American people those escalations required.

I highly doubt whether LBJ would even have won the Dem nomination. Once McCarthy showed LBJ was very vulnerable in New Hampshire, Bobby, always LBJ's bete noire, entered the race. (RFK announced he was running BEFORE LBJ dropped out.) It was to avert that disgrace of being 'primaried' that LBJ resigned. Tet of '68 was a pretty bracing wake-up call, as was Cronkite's subsequent evaluation that America was mired in a "stalemate," Westmoreland's Pollyannna-ish 'light at the end of the tunnel' bullshit notwithstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:16 AM

5. Yes, FEDERAL guards would be a good thing. FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL

 

This is a great idea.

ONLY Feds should have guns.
I trust Eric Holder to do the right thing.
100% of the time so far, Eric has done just that.

And I trusted Janet Reno 100% in the Clinton day, and 100% of the time Janet did the right thing.

This is a super idea.

And we can also solve some of the employment problems and give anyone a free college education afterward, solving some of that problem.

And of course the NRA would hate this idea, (even though they suggested it)
because the NRA hates the feds, as IMHO the whole idea of these guns stockpiling is to make a mockery of the federal government and to overthrow it someday

So KUDOS to Sen. Boxer, this is the best most realistic idea to happen that one could be.
And the National Guard is a trained militia- hee hee hee

that is so delicious, so dripping in irony.

BEST IDEA OF THE WEEK!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:30 AM

16. Nominated for most insane post of the week.

 

You're trying too hard.

"ONLY Feds should have guns... And I trusted Janet Reno 100% in the Clinton day, and 100% of the time Janet did the right thing."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:35 AM

18. LOL then write it better

 

I was using words the NRA fans know exactly what they meaning of them are.

neat and tidy and compact.

And in fact, it is the NRA that has led to ideas like this because they wouldn't do anything themselves about their major problem

I don't have a million dollar suit copyeditor to better write my posts like the NRA soundpeople do (and no, I am not in anyway implying you personally here, but who my posts are written for.

you do realize that your deflection above helps those who are pro-gun, pro-NRA to do just the same thing, which is why it not right to have that perception.

i seriously will have to find a forum, maybe sports or entertainment and post 400 quick posts so that it would show sports or entertainment as my favorite group.
It never dawned on me that my being anti-gun would backfire on me here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:58 PM

63. .....



Well Said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:06 AM

21. What!!

You do know National Guard troops are not federal, right. They are state, they can be activated under federal law, but they are under the command of the state governor when operating within that state. Also they are trained to carry fully automatic rifles, so do you want someone who is trained in combat tactics (which is MUCH different then what the police are trained to do) to be watching your kids. I have stated in many post that I am for police officers to be assigned to schools, but I have never concentered armed troops in our schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohLast (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:38 AM

32. True, and they are a reserve military force, whose function was never intended, and should not be

what Senator Boxer is suggesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohLast (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:00 PM

64. Don't Stop Him Now.....

He's on a roll.....

Never confuse the issue with the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:56 PM

37. OMFG, you are actually seriously advocating putting the Guard in schools. I thought

 

I had seen it all before today, but no, I was wrong.

I think we need to put the Guard at all daycare centers too. And all maternity wards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:17 AM

8. Whether the person is LEO or National Guard

The cost is still on the order of $10B/yr. With National Guard you are also going to have to find substitutes when the Guard are supposed to be at training during the week. They will also have to be trained to be guards (National Guard is trained to be soldiers first - not the same thing at all).

In terms of a regulated pool of talent, they do make sense for consideration. Given what we ask from the Guard (and our active duty military service), I think having them near our children is a good thing.

Since the last public school shootings with fatalities we had before Sandy Hook were as follows:

Sandy Hook 12/12 - 26 killed
Chardon 2/12 - 3 killed
Weston 9/06 - 2 killed
Platte Canyon 9/06 - 2 killed
Essex Elementary 8/06 -2 killed
Red Lake 3/05 - 8 killed
Rocori 9/03 - 2 killed
Red Lion 4/03 - 2 killed
Santana 3/01 - 2 killed
Columbine 4/99 - 15 killed

Presupposing that the guard would have stopped all of these shootings (which is not necessarily a good assumption since the numbers include the suicide at the school as well).

In other words if we had been spending $10B/yr in today's dollars after Columbine, each life would have cost approximately $4B to protect (assuming 100% effectiveness). Many of the 2 killed include a suicide so chances are those would not have been effective either.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:38 AM

12. There was a guard at Columbine n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:08 AM

14. True

I personally think a single uniformed guard is pretty ineffective in these situations (except possibly for the deterrent value). Looking at the Detroit squad room shooting makes me think a uniformed guard at a entrance would be the first to go down. An unarmed guard is a hall monitor and just a target (Red Lake).

Current protocol would call for the LEO at Columbine to charge in prior to the arrival of other LEO. Whether anyone but the boldest would have done that against someone armed with a Tec-9 is a question. The LEO would stand a good chance of getting shot (like one of the two person teams of first responders at Fort Hood and the Sikh Temple).

There is stuff out there on the internet which makes the TEC-9 and even the 30 round .223 Bushmaster look like pop guns. There is a bump fire 20 round magazine 12 gauge shotgun that is perfectly legal to own.



I just hope Big Daddy has a gun safe and not a disturbed grandson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:21 AM

9. Nutty. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:26 AM

11. Wow mooooorrreee guuunnnns.

Why we should not let the rich govern us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:59 AM

13. They could work as recruiters too!

Brilliant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:22 AM

15. Unfortunately, prior military experience is actually a risk factor for gun violence.

Setting aside all arguments about the possible effectiveness of placing troops in schools...

The current national guard and reserves are experiencing high rates of substance abuse ( The MOST significant risk factor for violence). And for those worried about mental illness, mental illness with severity enough to raise suicide rates of Sandlandistan vets is above those of matched ages populations and occupations.

Moreover, it's not clear to me if any military occupation code is trained to deal with children, which seems like something all the add security to the schools folks seem to ignore.

I'm a Vietnam vet, and I'm all for finding jobs for returning vets but at first glance seems to create some issues that need to be worked out.

After we've screened their backgrounds for disqualifying factors for working with kids, and screened them psychologically to be sure they'd be safe around kids, they'd need to be trained for the task of being a lone warrior expected to kill perpetrators.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:18 AM

23. Soldiers are trained to Kill, not protect.

Wrong tool for the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to formercia (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:43 AM

28. I'm almost certain, they lack specific training to protect classrooms of children

from a rampaging murderer.

Military police may already have much of the training that's needed to move toward such jobs.

BUT, during my military I served in a headquarters & service co, which included the MPs, and based on the drinking, drug use, interpersonal conflict and destruction of property I witnessed, I admit to having concerns.

Not every military policeman, or every soldier from combat arms is going to be appropriate to the task.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 08:58 AM

20. Nutty it may be, but it would be more in keeping with the intent of the National Guard...

...rather them being 10,000 miles away guarding another country.

Until we can have a rational, honest, come-to-Jesus meeting about what truly needs to be done here, continue to expect to see all kinds of ideas being floated about how to keep people safe from gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:14 AM

22. Why just schools? How about malls and movie theaters and playgrounds and soccer fields

and baseball diamonds and ice skating rinks and bus stops and parks and restaurants and everywhere else that could possibly attract enough of a crowd that someone could shoot it up?


I suppose if it were a 5 year trial with a review at the end to prove once and for all that this kind of thing won't work then it might have some use.

From my point of view it looks like it is treating a symptom and not the disease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:28 AM

26. Better yet, train EVERY adult to be a police officer....

....just think, we can have a guard 24/7 at the front door of every domicile!

What could possibly go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:51 PM

47. Mandatory military service is a possibility

Many other countries do it.

If a 2-3 year minimum was required for everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, then it could solve some problems.

Gun safety is just the tip of the iceberg. At least everyone would have some safety training and hopefully develop the proper respect for a firearm instead of thinking of it as a way to compensate for a small penis.


Getting everyone on the GI bill also helps deal with health care and affordable higher education. Also, it would be a way to screen everyone for drug and alcohol addiction while in the service. Mental illness can also be screened for at this time.

I would also suggest that a DNA sample be taken and kept on file for everyone in the service, therefore everyone. The excuse can be to identify remains but everyone will know that their DNA is on file and if they ever commit a crime that they are more likely to be caught because of it.

Then there is the bonus of having more people identify with the possibility of dying in a war. I think that the electorate would be shifted to the left if more people understood that as a reality instead of just something other people need to deal with.


I know, it is a pipe dream but IMO it is worth considering. Something drastic needs to happen to change the course we are on and this should at least be talked about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #47)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:27 PM

50. I was around the last time we tried the draft...it wasn't very popular to say the least....

...Some folks are just not cut out for the military....there's no sense forcing them to join.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:59 PM

58. that was selective service. not everyone had to serve

I was saying that EVERYONE would have to spend a couple years in the service.

That does not mean combat training. The military needs everything from Cooks to Computer Specialists.

Combat deployment could be reserved for those who choose to reenlist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:44 PM

60. But EVERYONE "participated" in the selection process whether you wanted to or not....

...and the idea of being selected and possibly ending up in Vietnam was a very real fear in those days. By and large, draftees believed the war in Vietnam to be unjust and the loss of life to be unwarranted.

The all-volunteer nature of today's US armed forces ensures that the vast majority of folks who join today are doing so willingly. That's a big difference from feeling that you've been forced into the service to fight a war for reasons with which you totally disagree.

I find your comments that having to serve in the military "does not mean combat training", and that "combat deployment could be reserved for those who choose to reenlist" to be incredibly naive. Once you're in, you'll get combat training whether you like it or not, and you'll deploy when they want you to deploy, first enlistment or not.

Additionally, where are you going to get the budget dollars for an already bloated Defense Department to train and equip hundreds of thousands of draftees? Which earned benefit programs are you willing to cut to make this happen?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:56 PM

68. I would be increasing earned benefits

because everyone would be on the GI bill.

That is the main idea.

Plus, the pentagon is going to be funded no matter what. Getting some reasonable use out of it might be a good idea.


Since joining the military is now voluntary I don't see why being in a portion of the military which engages in combat shouldn't be voluntary within a compulsory conscription system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #68)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:55 PM

71. Have you ever been in the military? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:20 AM

24. That is not as crazy as deploying them to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:27 AM

25. Why don't we just cut to the chase? Build schools like prisons!

High walls with no windows, guards facing out, metal detector gates, video cameras everywhere, the whole 9 yards. They will be perfectly 'safe'. Then when the kids get caught doing something bad, we can sentence them to long terms in a prison and they will already be used to it! Only difference will be that the guards will be facing in, and no going home in the evening...
And the prison-industrial complex gains a new set of customers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:29 AM

27. Freaking nuts is right

A political copycat crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:53 AM

29. Weak....

 

classic example of going from one extreme to the other-- from no, or wayyy too little security at our schools/universities, to Boxer's suggestion.

Is this all she suggests? what about the gross lack of mental health care in our nation? the fact "austerity mode" has caused school social workers, psychiatrists to be FIRED? has to be more than obvious by now we need MORE mental health care/monitoring in our schools-- not less.

how about stricter guns laws (finally) punishing ignorant, irresponsible gun owners who leave their guns fully accessible to their children (or to thieves) who then use the guns to commit murder and mayhem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 11:37 AM

31. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:47 PM

33. I can only hope that this is some ultra sophisticated facetious hyperbole.

"so you want armed guards in schools?"
"yeah."
"Yeah?"
"Bring it."
"I bring the motha fuckin' National fuckin' GUARD!"



(Unfortunately deploying the 'Guard to schools is not without precedent.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:54 PM

36. Well, they are union busters...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:58 PM

38. What the fuck?

Seriously... WHAT THE FUCK IS SHE THINKING?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:59 PM

39. Make a school a prison and students will act like prisoners.

These people are fucking morons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:01 PM

40. An OK strategic move

Makes gun control sound more sensible - if we can't control guns, this is the kind of thing we need to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:03 PM

41. Instead of all of this, wouldn't

gun control be the more sensible option?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:40 PM

43. Hey Boxer...




Please, kindly STFU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:44 PM

45. she should also include National Guards for ...

Shopping malls
Churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples
Day care centers
Senior centers
Little league games
Airport lobbies
My local bird club monthly meetings
Concerts

Have i missed anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:21 PM

46. Senator Boxer has a short memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:23 PM

49. Dumb, dumb, dumb

Schools are one of the safest places for children to be.


We hear of cases like Newtown because they are extremely rare.


Well, this will give school "reformers" an excuse to turn all public schools into online charters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

51. Fuckedy fuck..

This should be a conservative bagger nightmare...TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT! !!!Right right?Oh aren't public schools a socialist haven for children? ...oh the humanity.Wheres the bagger outrage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:55 PM

53. Do away with schools, have TV or Computer classes at home.

 

Only need a few dozen teachers, no school buses, school buildings administrators.
Watch your taxes go down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to julian09 (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:15 PM

56. ^^^^There it is^^^^

The end game of libertarian types. Get rid of public schools. Get rid of taxes. All of them.


As if there isn't more to getting a well rounded education than just taking classes.


You here on loan from Freeperville?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:00 PM

54. Lunacy...

 

More money to turn our schools into prisons. Geez this is horrible, just horrible. Nobody wants to see this.

Can you imagine that the national Guard will be called to inner city schools more than the schools in Beverly Hills? Even though class nor race is not an indicator of mass shootings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:29 PM

57. What a depressing disappointment. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 12:25 AM

59. National Guard.... what could go wrong...?

I mean, the Big Time military has never had a problem with spray-and-pray, blue-on-blue, friendly fire.

Well, except for Pat Tilman... killed by his supertrained, combat experienced Special Forces buddies.

And a bunch more... in every war...

Folks... guns on campus aren't an answer. More guns aren't an answer.

The National Guard can be trained specifically for patrolling schools, but what happens if the shit hits the fan?

Plan for lots more casualties.
- - - - - -
Just a sample...

US troops killed at least seven and wounded 34 of their compatriots in 18 suspected friendly fire incidents after the invasion of Iraq, only the most serious of which have previously been made public.

The catalogue of "blue on blue" deaths and injuries shows how serious the wrong call from a young man in charge of deadly weaponry can be in the stress, confusion and bureaucracy of modern war – and how events that seem clear one moment may be perceived differently soon afterwards.

When a unit from the 502nd Infantry Regiment came under small arms fire in Baghdad on 4 November 2005 they assumed they were being attacked by the enemy. Five men were injured and another, Staff Sergeant Joseph Fegler, 24, was killed. Two hours after the engagement it emerged that the damage had been done by the rear gunner of another US convoy up ahead. The first shots the victims heard had been warning shots fired to get them to keep their distance.

Three weeks later a patrol from another company of the same regiment, moving on foot through farmland south-west of Baghdad, came under heavy fire from insurgents. Some of the platoon were wounded and the senior sergeant commandeered a civilian car to take them back to the company vehicles. As it raced back another part of their company, drawn by the sound of shooting, headed their way. They saw a civilian car filled with armed men moving towards them at high speed, and opened fire, killing two of their comrades, Sergeant Aram Bass and Sergeant William Meeuwsen, and injuring four others, including a civilian interpreter.

Corporal Ryan Collins of the 501st Parachute Regiment, who died from a gunshot wound; and Private Shawn Hensel, who appears to have been among a group of 23rd Infantry soldiers hit by a burst of heavy calibre machine gun fire from a US Stryker armoured vehicle.

One night in October 2006 a British patrol, festooned with the blue light sticks, agreed on as a sign to identify themselves as friendly, reported they had been shot at by US troops who had no night vision goggles and had been listening to their iPods.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/american-troops-friendly-fire-iraq

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:33 PM

61. Wonder if this is her version

of what Rangel does when he periodically proposes that we bring back the draft to shut up the neocon armchair warriors. I.e., the foisting of a little reverse psychology whenever the fractional few loons call for such draconian measures...



Certainly wakes some folks up, including here don't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:37 PM

66. Insanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:55 PM

67. Having security at schools, on principle alone, does not bother me-

However, it's not the only solution. Needs to be a little more comprehensive than that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:30 PM

70. Totally absolutely RIDICULOUS & FUCKING NUTZ!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread