Can We Protect The Children?

Why not stand behind protecting our schools, with structural hardening and 'ARMED" security personnel and trained staff?

Political 'Gun' grabbing is ineffectual, despicable, irresponsible and dangerous!

I am so sick of this mentality.

We have had almost three decades to fix this.

The 'gun control' narrative is more important to the left than child protection!

Shame on them all. It's so sad and so obvious!

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

DUUUDE!!! The Uvalde school had an armed guard!!!

The school had active shooter training. There was a "good guy with a gun" on the scene. Didn't prevent the tragedy.

Funny thing: no guns allowed at RNC conventions.
Funny thing: no guns allowed at Trump rallies.
Funny thing: no guns allowed when Trump speaks to the NRA.
I guess cons know how to keep a child safe after all!!!

soar2newhighs

@ElwoodBlues Secret service doing their jobs, protecting former presidents at venues albeit the NRA.
And it’s interesting how many celebrities/notables decry guns except when it comes to their personal security. Hypocrites.

BohemianBoo · M

@ElwoodBlues The real "Deep State" are the rich and powerful. They live in a totally different country than the rest of us with different laws. Their lives matter, ours don't.

ElwoodBlues · M

@soar2newhighs Hypocrisy?

We all agree the cops should carry guns. BUT! Trump and the NRA claim that 'open carry' makes us safer. Yet they refuse to allow open carry at their rallies and meetings and public gatherings. THERE is your [b][i]hypocrisy!!![/i][/b]

soar2newhighs

@ElwoodBlues No that is how the Secret service functions. Even if Trump said no to no guns in the convention he would be overruled by the secret service. Let’s be clear, I’m talking about the Secret service protecting the former president. If the NRA is having a convention and there is no one requiring secret service protection and they don’t permit people to carry, then yes it is hypocrisy.

ElwoodBlues · M

@soar2newhighs So Trump is not in charge of his own appearances? The Secret Service is the boss??

DUUUDE!! The only thing the Secret Service can do is ADVISE. The final decision is always up to Trump. And Trump ALWAYS says no guns at his appearances. Even in 2016 before Trump had SS protection, his rule was no guns. Make all the excuses you like, Trump's hypocrisy is ABSOLUTE!

Oster1 · M

@ElwoodBlues As always you are spreading disinformaion. There was no armed gaurd at the school. You are always wrong, but yet so sure. Your ignorance and arrogance is astonishing. 🙄

ElwoodBlues · M

@Oster1 Think so? Think again.
[quote]At a Wednesday press conference in Uvalde, DPS Director Steve McCraw said that a school police officer “engaged” with the gunman before he entered the school but did not exchange gunfire with the gunman. Other DPS officials were quoted in media reports saying there was an exchange of gunfire at that moment.[/quote]
https://www-texastribune-org

You're claiming you know better than the Texas Dept of Public Safety director? [b]LOL!!![/b] Maybe YOU are the one spreading disinformation because you can't bear to see the collapse of the "good guys with guns" theory.

Oster1 · M

@ElwoodBlues Like always, you are wrong again. Who are you trying to fool?

Like you, your link is a joke and laughable. Please Elwood!

It's obvious, you have nefarious motives.

No one could possibly be this stupid, disingenuous or lying, everytime they post!

Here, feel the embarrassment. Maybe it's time to change your name. LMAO!!!

It's everywhere even on the left, and you know that! 🙄🤡🤡🤡

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-police-spox-claims-uvalde-shooter-was-not-confronted-by-armed-security-guard-in-contentious-presser/ar-AAXLWA7

ElwoodBlues · M

@Oster1 Did you miss the word "claims"???

So the Texas police establishment found it convenient to change their story. Please notice that crucial word "claims." Also, they are saying the shooter was "not confronted." They're not saying the "good guy with a gun" wasn't on site. They're only saying the good guy with a gun didn't confront the shooter. [b]LOL!!![/b]

Texas cops have changed their story about the shooting [i]THIRTEEN[/i] TIMES!!! You still find them credible???
[b]https://www.insider.com/texas-police-change-timeline-of-uvalde-shooting-retract-key-claim-2022-5[/b]

Here's what they're saying now:
[quote]McCraw added that the school police officer actually drove past the gunman, who was hiding behind a car.[/quote]
Shooter and officer on campus, outside the school, at the same time. The officer (allegedly) didn't SEE the gunman, but the officer was THERE.

In short, there was good guy with a gun on campus with the shooter, and it wasn't sufficient. Maybe they need TWO good guys with guns?? Or THREE???

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Oster1 · M

@ElwoodBlues I don't suffer fools, Elwood. It's much too late for you, to backstroke.

It's time for a name change. This one's reputation, has been destroyed, IMO.

ElwoodBlues · M

@Oster1
Translation: you can no longer deny that there was an officer on site outside the school when the shooter was on site outside the school.

[quote]McCraw added that the school police officer actually drove past the gunman, who was hiding behind a car.[/quote]

In short, there was good guy with a gun on campus with the shooter, and it wasn't sufficient. Maybe they need TWO good guys with guns?? Or THREE???

Oster1 · M

@ElwoodBlues I actually feel pity for you. It's so pathetic and hard to watch.

I sure wish you well, OK. Take care. 🤗😔

ElwoodBlues · M

@Oster1 When a conservative abandons reason and starts throwing insults at me, that's how I know they've conceded the debate.

I humbly accept your concession that you can no longer deny that there was an officer on site outside the school when the shooter was on site outside the school, and that the presence of the officer was insufficient to prevent the mass killing.