In response to:

Bloomberg on Unarmed Sandy Hook Principal: "I Don't Know What A Gun Would Have Done"

greekdish Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 8:18 AM
One of the things I keep hearing since the shooting is that we need to provide extra security in these schools and maybe pay for armed guards since we spend "millions and billions" on other useless things. My question is this.... WTF do we pay cops to do now?? If not to protect citizens (and obviously children), then what? Why should we pay extra for what we already pay for? Here's a thought, get the useless donut eating cops off traffic duty and to stop being glorified meter maids....and have a cop car with 2 uniformed officers parked in the parking lot. Simple and effective solution.
GoOrdnance915A Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 9:57 AM
It is a well established ruling by the Supreme Court that police have no Constitutional responsibility to protect citizens. The inital ruling was in the 1980s and was confirmed as recently as 2005. This is why all the voices saying that the police will protect us and that we shouldn't be allowed to have guns are wrong.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who politicized the Sandy Hook tragedy within hours last Friday, just wrapped up a press conference announcing new plans to fight gun violence and to counter the National Rifle Association with his own Super PAC. Bloomberg was asked by a reporter to respond to Rep. Louie Gohmert's comments over the weekend that he wished the principal of the school, who died trying to take down shooter Adam Lanza, had a gun. Bloomberg responded by saying, "There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements.....I don't know what the gun would have...