Mayberry Machiavelli
Mayberry Machiavelli's JournalIn one case: Cop should sacrifice his life at a school. In another: Cop's life is paramount.
They should shoot a pulled over driver or other suspect if the slightest possibility exists they could have a weapon and they feared for their life. If the suspect was innocent and had no weapon, the shooting was still justified because there was a billion to one chance there was a weapon and the poor sod was reaching for it. Better the citizen endure all the risk and the brunt of police firepower than the policeman endure a tiny unkown risk to their person, them making it home to their family is their number one job.
In the other instance they should go against this value that appears deeply instilled by so much training to go to a likely or almost certain death in a specialized scenario that occurs a lot less frequently.
And most of the same people (right winger and gun nuts that is) arguing both sides of this.
Don't get me wrong. I wish the first police on the scene in Parkland had taken more action and given the children a better chance. But I consider it a long chance the single cop would have saved the kids and focusing on his failure to act is a convenient distraction from anything to do with availability of high velocity semi auto weapons.
But I don't see how to reconcile these police scenarios, honestly.
What is Romney's game in running for the Senate? I don't get it.
If it were to prepare himself to primary Trump, then his meekly accepting Trump's endorsement totally ruined that.
If he thinks he can play cute and "survive" until Trump is removed by the Mueller probe and then run for the GOP nomination, the GOP will be so tarnished by then he wouldn't stand a chance in a general election.
Did he really want to get back in the politics game just to be a Senator for a term or two and not run for President?
Arming teachers? Good Guy With A Gun? Chaff. Flares.
When a fighter jet is being tracked by a missile it can throw out countermeasures to "spoof" the missile.
If the missile uses radar, chaff is a bunch of metallic particles that the radar can lock onto.
If the missile tracks heat, flares can redirect the missile.
If the countermeasures work, the missile is "distracted" and the jet gets away.
I've concluded that the arguments about arming teachers and putting more good guys with guns are not fundamentally serious arguments, even to the people making them.
They are just designed to distract us, get the media and all of us arguing about them and wasting time, just to buy time until the flame of public outrage burns out. As long as we are arguing about anything or everything EXCEPT restricting access to firearms or increasing regulation of them in any way, it's fine with them.
They don't care if the "chaff" argument gets shut down as long as another outrage cycle passes and no one touches the guns.
I think if they righties were actually serious about this stuff they would approach it in a different way than just throw out a bunch of talking points and let everyone argue then forget about it. They'd have a plan in mind for armed teachers or more guards or whatever already sketched out that could become legislation, and then launch the talking points as an opening salvo leading into a campaign to promote action.
Nothing like that ever happens with gun arguments that don't relate to the weapons themselves.
How many GOP Congressional seats are winnable out of CA this year?
Issa's. What other ones? Rohrbacher?
What about longer shots like Duncan Hunter Jr.?
Rather than make any changes with guns, we should turn our society upside down.
Make armed fortresses of every school and church, armed militia out of every kindergarten teacher.
What an obscene joke this country is becoming, if we can't turn this around.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Jan 17, 2004, 01:32 PMNumber of posts: 21,096
