http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/27/why-not-just-give-up-the-pretense-and-convert-our-schools-directly-into-prisons Comments On: Why Not Just Give Up the Pretense, and Convert Our Schools Directly into Prisons? by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 23 May 2013 00:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by MK1]]> Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:37:24 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Y.F. Redux]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:08:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by delirian]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:04:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Furcifer]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:24:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Prettybetsy]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:43:44 -0800 The Stranger Posted by xjuan]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:49:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by LEE.]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:36:19 -0800 The Stranger
Relatively standard procedure for a lot of people I know is to actually have 2 safes, a small biometric & keypad one in or near the bedroom bolted to the wall or floor for a handgun, and a larger long gun safe (again, bolted) with biometric, combination or key elsewhere in the house.

If there are keys, you store one safe's key in the other safe. You keep ammo for the handgun in the handgun safe, for everything else you store the ammo locked separately from the other guns.

Biometric safes are not leading edge tech any more, and they work. They open in about 5 seconds. The point of having a gun in the house is to have a fallback if the cops can't get to the house in time after you call 911 and hunker down.

There seems to be an image here that gun nuts are itching for a fight and want to rush downstairs and be Rambo, and then shoot the FedEx guy or Grandma in their fog. Obviously you can scrounge up a couple news stories on the latter, but meanwhile there are a few million others actually doing the former, every day of the year.


Posted by Boring Dad is Boring]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:54:39 -0800 The Stranger So fuck off you ignorant cunt.You complain about a poster not knowing what 'fascist' means and then you retort with one of the most sexist and bigoted slurs? Let me quickly explain what 'cunt' means and why it is inappropriate. It is a word that is used to ruthlessly attack a woman for not fitting into her 'assigned' gender norms. Women that are called 'cunts' are not acting passively and respecting the male authority. It is a word that is used to let them know they don't fit into society and that they need to conform and obey men. When it is used at men, it is meant to evoke the worst stereotype that the bigot has of women and then use that to try to emasculate the man. The same applies to the words 'bitch' and 'whore'. Don't fucking use them.
Posted by delirian]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:13:38 -0800 The Stranger Posted by imbecile]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:39:38 -0800 The Stranger Just joshing with you. 100 percent libertarian is too ideal to function in our complex world.
Posted by CbytheSea]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:32:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by More, I Say!]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:14:07 -0800 The Stranger Really?
“In March 2011, the Obama administration took a position opposing the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, or SOAR Act, authored by Boehner and Lieberman to reauthorize the D.C. voucher program and provide additional funds. "The Administration strongly opposes expanding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and opening it to new students," the White House statement declared.” He did break down and sign the Act a few weeks later, but only as part of negotiations to prevent a government shutdown.

Has he come to his senses and flipped and flopped on this when I wasn’t looking? (If so, good for him!)

@46
I place no value on ideological purity for the purity's sake.

Libertarian or not, I firmly believe that mandatory gun training for everyone would be an excellent idea. Make it part of the basic educational curriculum we already regard as mandatory to keep child protective services out of your business (reading, writing, arithmetic and gun handling).

I also feel I could be persuaded that mandatory participation in a militia (in the form of a private, non-government force, neither supported nor sanctioned by the government), could be a workable solution, if not to qualify for gun ownership, at least as a self-regulating channel for ammunition distribution and liability coverage. I think this is more than reasonable.

Just thinking out loud: Make the ammo traceable to the particular militia that distributed it and make each militia liable for wrongful or accidental death caused by their ammo and require each militia to carry adequate liability insurance (or self-insure). Put Federally mandated (and really fucking draconian) penalties in place for people caught with stolen or un-marked ammunition. Something like life in prison without chance of parole (or bring back permanent exile on penalty of death). I think I could be persuaded that this is reasonable. (Have all the guns you want, but if you want bullets, you need to be a member in good standing of a militia that will accept responsibility for the results of your actions.)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:40:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by shanes]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:25:41 -0800 The Stranger A bit more on Switzerland.
http://www.france24.com/en/20110213-swis…


Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:06:14 -0800 The Stranger Posted by CbytheSea]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:53:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by CbytheSea]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:51:07 -0800 The Stranger I said look to. Not duplicate.
BTW, I am ok with mandatory draft and mandatory training, though I think mandatory training would be adequate (and have already said as much in other posts today).
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:56:02 -0800 The Stranger Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:52:42 -0800 The Stranger If you'd like to look to Switzerland I think that's a great idea. Yes, all military aged adult males (they may have extended it to females since I checked last) are issued an assault rifle. However ammunition is extremely well regulated. It's illegal for private citizens to have ammunition outside the firing range. Military aged males are automatically drafted into the military and must go to the range to practice monthly. They're issued a certain number of bullets and must return the same number of empty shells.

If you're ok with mandatory draft, mandatory training and an absolute ban on owning any ammunition I'm open to considering the other Swiss rules.
Posted by Root]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:52:13 -0800 The Stranger
So you're saying that Carter decided to burden a public school district with the expense and distraction of tending the President's kids, instead of paying the exorbitant tuition at a private school that knows how to deal with the security issues?

Stevens Elementary School and Hardy Middle School (both public Washington, D.C. schools) were good enough for Amy Carter (and her pro-public-school-president-of-a-father), why on earth shouldn’t they be good enough for the Obama’s girls (unless, of course, he doesn’t want his girls mingling with the lower classes).

But again, all that I'm saying is that if a politician is against programs that get poor kids out of public schools and into private schools he looks like a hypocrite if he sends his kids to a private school. It says "public school isn't good enough for my rich kids but it's just fine for your poor kids. So suck it." Just show me the program that Obama supports that offers the same opportunities to poor kids as those that he pays for for his own kids and I will withdraw my observation.

Although I must admit that I'm puzzled that such a "man of the people" would send his children to such an elitist institution...
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:51:32 -0800 The Stranger
They hurt poor kids way more than they help.
Posted by wl]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:38:51 -0800 The Stranger
Vouchers are a scam to destroy quality public education.
Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:36:20 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Chas Redmond]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:27:47 -0800 The Stranger All that I am saying is that if a politician is against programs that get poor kids out of public schools and into private schools he looks like a hypocrite if he sends his kids to a private school. It says "public school isn't good enough for my rich kids but it's just fine for your poor kids. So suck it." That's all I'm saying. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:20:36 -0800 The Stranger