Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Confused and Crazed Conservatives Distort Clinton’s COPS Program to Help the NRA
Breitbart.com has the conservatives super confused again. This time it’s writer John Nolte, seeking to justify the NRA’s jumping-the-shark presser yesterday. How can anyone justify that, you ask? Well, he’s claiming that President Clinton put cops in school and there’s no difference between what Clinton did and what LaPierre offered up as the corporate agenda NRA’s vision for America, so how dare the media act as if Wayne LaPierre sounded crazy.
In a paranoid rant about how the media is attacking LaPierre’s “attractive” idea of arming up our schools, Nolte hyperventilates:
In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called “COPS in School,” a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking.
It’s as if he doesn’t realize that that program was already in effect, and what that program did, and who tried to shut it down.
He even quotes Clinton and this does not raise the alarm bell for him that he might be missing something:
“Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said.
School safety and coaching sports! Curse the evil media that ignores the hypocrisy!
Clinton’s 1994 COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program, which Republicans tried to kill in 1995 and Bush defunded, was not about cops carrying armed weapons into schools. It was part of a broader approach to decrease crime rates by getting police involved in their communities. In other words, it was a sane policy.
MSNBC explained, “The original Clinton plan, enacted as part of a crime bill in 1994, envisioned hiring 100,000 police officers who would walk the streets, visit the schools and get to know the communities they were policing. The federal government paid 75 percent of the cost for three years, with a salary and benefit cap of $75,000 per officer.”
It also included money for police departments to buy computers and other new equipment. Note: No one was paying the NRA with taxpayer money to train armed police in order to patrol our schools. It’s a shame that Nolte missed that part, because that part contributed to LaPierre appearing like a cold-hearted, greedy, out-of-touch man whose relationship with reality is now in question.
Of course, Republicans were against Clinton’s COPS program back then. Sigh. Republicans preferred to focus on punishing crimes and claimed to have issue with the federal government having any say over local government. It was a waste of money, they cried! They felt so strongly about this that it contributed to (prepare for déjà vu) their shut down of government. Of course, the current proposal by the NRA (R-nationwide) is estimated to cost around $5.4 billion. This from the “fiscal hawks” who just hightailed it out of congress after failing to pass a budget plan out of alleged concern over spending.
Obama started funding the COPS program again via the stimulus, at a time when police departments couldn’t afford to keep fully staffed.
Not surprisingly, “community policing” was acknowledged to mean the opposite of Breitbart writer’s take on it.
Milwaukee police chief Edward Flynn said that while the politics has centered mostly on the hiring program, “the great value of the COPS program was on the educational side.”
The money for new officers was the hook, he said, but the notion of close engagement with neighbors “was a critical development in the evolution of policing in American cities,” helping drive down crime while boosting community trust.
Indeed, when a conservative criticized it in 2001, he scoffed that it was feel good liberal bs that we couldn’t afford, especially since some of the funds went to “… Department of Natural Resources officers whose duties include teaching children how to fish and putting up deer crossing signs along highways.” Yeah, teaching what I assume were at-risk youths how to fish is almost like assault weapon carrying police stalking the hallways of our preschools in order to enrich the NRA in both weapon purchases and “training” they’ve suggested they be in charge of, but not.
The purpose of COPS was to get police out from behind their desks and engaged in their communities, in order to foster trust on both sides. Furthermore, if LaPierre hasn’t lost it completely, we have to assume he wants these armed Blackwater types armed with assault weapons, because after all, “bad guys” have them.
In case Nolte is still confused,on December 19th Senator Boxer (D-CA) introduced the School Safety Enhancements Act, which would strengthen and expand the Justice Department’s existing COPS Secure Our Schools grants program to provide schools with more resources to install tip lines, surveillance equipment, secured entrances and other important safety measures. Clearly COPS falls short of LaPierre’s Mad Max vision.
According to Nolte, this is a big media conspiracy so the media – yes, the media – can take our guns and give Obama another “win”.
Dizzying desperation.
h/t Shoq
Follow me on Twitter here
On his radio show today, Glenn Beck claimed that the Wisconsin police should blindly support Scott Walke ...
NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre held a presser regarding the NRA's position on gun control in response to the mas ...
John Boehner praised the response of federal, state, and local law enforcement in the Boston area, while ...
Wayne LaPierre went so far off the crazy cliff today that even Fox News had to call out his conspiracy l ...
On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that police and firefighters are nice to have, but they take a ...
Sally
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 8:01 am
Is there anyone at all on the right with a conscience, a brain, or one iota of common sense left? Fox, Breitbart, the NRA..not one among them cares about people, only profit. The NRA, as Lawrence pointe dout last night, is simply a front for the gun lobby. Period..they are about profits for gunmakers and bullet makers, and now, body armor makers. I know, the next ad buy will be all about how these things are all made in AmeriKA, right? For a party so concerned about the voting rights of the unborn (we have a new bill in fascist Michigan granting a fetus inheritance rights) they sure want the rest of us to die violently, and the sooner the better. I mean, how much safer will my kindegartner feel hiding under her desk while the good cop shoots it out with the bad guy with the bazooka?
Churchlady
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Fetuses have had inheritence rights since 1834. The change occurred in Hall v Hancock where the issue of “living” was debated.Colonial and common law claimed “living” began at “quickening” or viaibility. But if a fetus was not “alive” at the death of the father or another relative making a bequest to “descendants now living” could it inherit? The decision was that yes – it could – and determining “living” beginning at conception existed for ONLY inheritence and then if and only if the eventual child was born alive. It did not change the issue of abortion being perfectly legal for non-viable fetuses. That stood intact.
And now the religious right has mucked up the Bible on the unborn (causing a miscarriage was a fineable offense only), the common and customary law of our nation, and has created a bill that is unnecessary since the law has been settled for almost 200 years. Leave it to them to get it ALL wrong.
Gary
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 1:32 am
It’s not about if you child would FEEL safer, It’s the fact they would come home to you that day rather than end up a body on the floor.
KatzKids
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 8:04 am
Thanks Sarah, excellent post.
Their insanity & lies just never stop do they? The rats are so desperate now they’re biting & trying to rip out the throats of their own as well as ours. Unfortunately ours are their first priority & we must stop them somehow. First, by voting them out. Then, by treating them the same as we treat the Westboro Baptist Church. They are equally crazy & evil.
Reynardine
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 8:32 am
We don’t even treat Westboro Baptist Church the way we should treat Westboro Baptist Church.
KatzKids
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 8:37 am
That’s true!
Anne
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 8:41 am
There’s a HUGE difference between having a police presence in schools and arming teachers and students. Clinton’s program was a thoughtful, prudent, and preventive measure while La Pierre’s proposal would bring a host of unintended and disastrous consequences. The more these fools distort the truth to fit their twisted ideology, the worse they look and sound. They seem to be stuck in a time warp and afflicted with a Wild West mentality. Their tone-deafness to their wildly inappropriate response to such a tragedy and their failure to acknowledge their own role in the number of needless shootings each year show why they should have no political influence.
Tara O'Rourke
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 9:02 am
Msnbc is wrong. They where separate programs. Clinton campaigned for 100,000 new cops. The COPS in schools was an offshot of that program. COPS was created after columbine. Clinton did put cops in schools. He also funded training of school employees to help them recognize signs of depression etc. that might lead to violence. There was some other programs involved to help solve this crisis.
Anne
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 10:13 am
Either way, Clinton’s approach showed common sense, empathy, and a sense of decency whereas these nutcases care only about how they are financially affected. Their proposals would be disastrous.
Tom
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 10:45 am
He requested additional funding after Columbine for the same program. It was called COPS before Columbine.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 10:12 am
Its so important to remember who was against that action, and who defunded it. The republicans.
Its also important to remember this was about cops in communities AND schools. Not in schools as guards but to get to know the issues there
How long is an armed guard going to stay armed in a Detroit high school?
Im betting you can count it in minutes
BodiJohn
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 12:05 pm
School security agents, school police..whatever…In NYC inner city schools there are sometimes dozens of School Safety Officers…fact of life…along with x-ray scanners at entrances…As an immediate solution, adding trained resource officers is a good idea. I was an administrator in inner city schools and had to request police because of the gang issues that exploded in the late 80s…Fact of life…they soon became ‘standard issue’ in all of the schools in our statewide system. Most of them loved the work and loved being in the school…they got to know the kids and they were on top of many situation before the actually kicked off. As a practical, daily reality, they were very effective.
This, of course, does not speak to the issue of why we needed them. That is a bigger discussion that will need to be undertaken by everyone. I read today of two guys who robbed 111 guns from a manufacturer in my state…they were apprehended while they were selling the guns on the street! Guns are everywhere! Come on, we can do better than this. I grew up with guns…but, I didn’t think of them really much different than my fishing and hiking gear…we were outside all of the time and I was taught how to live with nature..that included taking game…but, we were also taught gun safety by our parents who were very strict about the subject. It was just a natural thing. Although I no longer hunt, and I have come to know a different way regarding the taking of the life of any sentient being, I do not feel the need to impose restrictions on the millions of people who live in harmony with nature and hunt and fish for both the enjoyment and the taking of game for food…it is their way…and none of my business.
But, the NRA is defending weapons on a whole different scale in order to ensure the rights of rational, responsible weapons owners.
We must deal with how a weapon is purchased and where it ends up and to what end. More guns on the street is not the…
Bob
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Why is it so important to remember who was against that action back then, and who defunded it. Isn’t more important to know who’s for that action today?
Liberals are blowing off school security just to get at those dreaded gun owners.
For you rabid liberals, this has nothing to do with school security or protecting the lives of children. It’s not on your socialist agenda. But, banning guns is! So let’s use this tragedy to get what we want and move on. Right?
David Payne
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 11:39 am
Bob, if you had even the faintest clue what you were talking about we might pay attention.
Hi. I’m a liberal. I’m not coming for your guns. Many of my friends are liberals. They’re not coming for your guns. I read a lot of liberal websites. I haven’t read about anyone coming for your guns.
Turn off Fox and Limbaugh and start paying attention to the real world.
G Harris
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 7:48 pm
So if we get around to removing “the log from our own eye,” we only need to ask a few questions why are today’s kids given psychotropic chemicals which lead to suicides/homocides and what killed the most kids at an American school EVER…A CAR BOMB over 70 years ago.
txpatriot
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 7:56 pm
The only relevant question, which this article leaves completely unanswered, is this: of the additional police officers in school provided by this program were those officers armed? If not, then the program is entirely different from what the NRA proposes. But if they were armed, then how is it different in substance from what the NRA proposes?
In fact we already know the answer to my question: of course the additional officers were armed. If they weren’t, Ms. Jones would have taken great pains to point that out. As she does not (because she cannot), she points to every other difference she can find, ignoring the essential similarity.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Today, most intelligent people think its better to try and stop people before they get into the school and before the conservative congress has to choke up the money for the armed guards. Which we both know wont happen.
URMAMA
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities
David Payne
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 11:43 am
What were the cops intended to do, Urmama? Were they armed guards, like the NRA insists is a great solution? What I’ve read about COPS would have me think otherwise, but since you must know, please elucidate.
andy
Dec. 22nd, 2012 at 10:37 pm
the Clinton plan sounds pretty close to what the NRA proposed
not very different at all.
somewhere
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 8:55 am
Spending 5.4 billion is worth protecting our children. When you call the police during a tragedy, what do you expect to happen? Do you expect the police to kindly ask the killer to stop or do you expect them to show up with guns to kill him? DUH! If the police are already there, things this Sandy Hook wouldn’t happen or at least would be reduced which will definitely accomplish more than not allowing law abiding citizens from owning weapons. A weapons ban of any kind isn’t going to stop the violence and taking rights away from Americans will only prevent them from protecting themselves and others. Criminals by definition, don’t obey the law, and millions of these types of weapons are already prevalent practically everywhere. Stupid, is thinking another law on top of the 20,000 already existent gun laws is going to change a damn thing. Government can’t protect you, so it is up to you to protect yourself. I am not saying that teachers should be armed but I am saying that had someone been on duty with a gun Friday December 14th at Sandy Hook, a lot of people would still be alive. We call the police, because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and there is not escaping that. Defend your rights as well as mine and use your brains. The Constitution is vital to our country and any infringement upon is a detriment to our society. Yes, an AWB is an infringement, the 2A is in place for WE THE PEOPLE to defend ourselves, our homes and our country from enemies both foreign AND domestic.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 9:11 am
Its 50-50 that an armed teacher or whatever would be killed or killed the shooter.
No rights are being taken away if assault weapons are banned.
You planning on being attacked soon? Mexico? China?
Keith_Indy
Dec. 26th, 2012 at 2:10 pm
No, I don’t expect Canada or Mexico to invade my home…
But a gang of thugs intent on clearing out our house with no thought to those inside is another matter…
news.search.yahoo.com/sea...
And as others have said 50/50 would have been better odds then the principle had stopping an armed gunman without a firearm.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 26th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
You realize your link meant nothing right?
The gang of thugs is just about as likely as Canada or Mexico. And you dont need a Bushmen to protect yourself
Balance
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 11:20 am
So why don’t we do what Clinton wanted to do that is very close to what the NRA want’s to do now.
That way the folks on the social side of politics will be happy. We will get about the same thing as the NRA suggested. More cops in schools and someone with a gun to protect our children from sick people.
Bob
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 11:24 am
50-50? That’s a lot better chances than the CT teachers had.
But, this doesn’t fit the liberal socialist agenda of disarming America. So it must be a foolish plan. Teachers and children will never have a chance in a liberal socialist society.
When the next tradgety occurs after a ban, what will the liberals blame? Religion? Anti-abortion sentiment? How will liberals exploit the next tradgety?
Gov
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 6:46 pm
What’s the problem with highly-respected police officers getting to know our children while protecting them?
I think it’s a great idea!
By the way, you can see Bill Clinton’s Cops in Schools details at the link below (hint type Ctrl+F, then type ‘schools’) www.justice.gov/opa/pr/Pr...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Whats the problem with making sure people dont get semi automatic weapons to solve their problems with? So cops can go out and do their jobs?
old guy
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 6:00 am
What’s the problem with making sure people don’t get semi automatic weapons? Even a revolver is a semi automatic weapon; each time you pull the trigger, one bullet is fired with no need to reload until you’ve fired all 6 or 8 bullets. Virtually all hand guns are semi automatic weapons. Since it only takes a few seconds to replace an empty 10 bullet magazine with another 10 bullet magazine, its really silly to think that limiting magazine size would stop a mass killer.
No, I’m not a member of the NRA and I don’t even own a gun. Fortunately, I live in a safe neighborhood. But if I didn’t, it would give me no comfort to know that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Admit it Shiva, your gun-a-phobia is irrational. A few years ago when many states liberalized their gun laws, TV & newspaper editorials in my town and many elsewhere all predicted wild west shootouts on every corner. Instead, gun violence has gone down.
Let the cops do their job? ALL the cops I know, & I do know several, support the NRA and laws permitting ordinary law abiding citizens to carry weapons.
Really Shiva, get over your gun phobia. Go to a local gun shop and take a gun safety class or a concealed carry class. Even if you never buy a gun, at least you’ll learn a bit about how gun owners think. No, I’ve not taken those classes, I just know how hyper my friends who do own guns are about gun safety and hoping they never have to aim their guns at another human being.
Gun-a-phobia leads to totally irrational results such as one I read about in NYC many years ago: a young women was being attacked by a rapist and had a small (but illegal) gun in her purse that she managed to use to drive the guy away with a single non-fatal shot. He got off because he hadn’t been successful in his attempted rape, but she was prosecuted. The cops weren’t there to protect her.
We should trust the cops to protect us, but we surely don’t want them in our schools…
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 8:53 am
No, not all guns are semi automatic. Semi automatic guns are designed for rapid fire and most use a gas system for that speed. Single shot does not equal semi automatic. You are as ignorant about guns, are you sure you should be talking about them?
Gun violence has not gone down. Each year more and more people are killed by guns.
old guy
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Sorry Shiva, you’re wrong. I didn’t saw all guns are semi automatic, just that most handguns are.
“A semi-automatic rifle is a type of rifle that fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled…” Wikipedia
No, a revolver doesn’t automatically eject the spent cartridge and so takes longer to reload than swapping out a magazine, but a double action revolver will shoot its 6 or 8 bullets just as fast as you can pull the trigger.
And gun deaths HAVE gone down as gun ownership has gone up! see my reply to Anne under “NRA’s Sleazy Sunday Strategy…” with an extensive quote from Scientific American
a fully automatic rifle fires a burst of bullets as long as the trigger continues to be pulled back.
Yes, a semi-automatic can fire rapidly if you can pull the trigger rapidly. But people who think they might need a handgun for self defense aren’t likely to trust their lives on the accuracy of a single shot.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
S semi auto pistol is designed to fire faster than a regular pistol. Period. It fires faster than a double action pistol. But the argument is meaningless.
I see your reply and did my own research. Deaths went down back then because of greatly increased incarceration and other reasons. Gun deaths are now on the way back up
—————-
“The United States has the highest gun ownership rates in the world and the second highest rate of gun deaths among industrialized nations.
That’s not a coincidence. Looking at developed nations, the U.S. is the end point of a staggering trend where the higher the rate of gun ownership, the more people die from gun wounds.
In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, Mark Reid, a machine learning researcher at Australian National University, has run a quick statistical analysis of gun death data in industrialized nations.
His charts show how unique the U.S. is among its peers when it comes to the way the country handles guns.
The first chart shows gun deaths per capita graphed against gun ownership per capita. Notice the upward trend — the more guns per capita, the more gun deaths per capita. The US has the most guns, ergo it has one of the highest rates of gun deaths.
Read more: www.businessinsider.com/s...“
Gov
Dec. 26th, 2012 at 12:08 am
hmmmm… How would you propose “making sure people don’t get semi automatic weapons”?
Gov
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 8:52 pm
hmmmm… How would you propose “making sure people don’t get semi automatic weapons”?
Keith_Indy
Dec. 26th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Just some food for thought…
Focusing soley on gun deaths is not looking at the complete picture.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...
politicalcalculations.blo...
finance.townhall.com/colu...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 26th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
I could care less about the UK or Europe. Your 2006 and 2009 link is meaningless. We are talking here in the US and people killed by guns. We are 2nd in the civilized world in gun deaths.
Keith_Indy
Dec. 26th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Well, that tells me all I need to know about your reasoning.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 26th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Sorry, your comparisons are meaningless.
Keith_Indy
Dec. 26th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
So deaths by other means are beyond your care and other violent crimes are just meaningless.
JoeCali
Dec. 29th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Easy to criticize, harder to problem solve. Liberals and anti-gun wonks always tout more gun control as the answer. Ignoring the relevant studies that provide ample evidence additional gun laws do not do anything to slow or prevent violence.
There are 2 noted Social Scientists Gary Kleck and John Lott who were prior to conducting unbiased research not pro-gun. Their scientific conclusions which the left chooses to blatantly ignore clearly point out additional gun laws are not the answer…
So they choos to follow the science when it suits the narrative…
So anyone who is the least bit intellectually honest might want to read the the studies that have been published. There are a great number of Criminologists as well who conclude more gun laws will not stop or prevent violence.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 29th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Kinda Like Australia that has strict laws and murder is almost gone
Depends on the laws now doesnt it? Violence doesnt require a gun
JoeCali
Dec. 29th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
So with 31,000 deaths in 2005 that were gun related 55% were suicides…
Someone who commits suicide is suffering from a mental disturbance that has gone untreated. Does anyone think that if they were determined to take their own life that they would not have found a another way? How many bridges do we have in our country? How many cliffs?
The wrong is always made when it comes to guns…until we all stand up and ask that our mental health system be fixed we will continue to leave our neighbors behind.
You know the part about loving your neighbor the left is always so keen to throw in the face of the right when claiming the right ignores the most vulnerable in society…
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 29th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
And most of the killings are in part becuase of your neighbor.your relatives or drinking
Take a look at how the republicans vote and tell me they dont “ignores the most vulnerable in society”
JoeCali
Dec. 29th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Interesting how Australia’s homicide rate by any means has stayed relatively constant over the last 20 years regardless of the laws…looks like someone who wants to kill another, just finds another means to do so, if no gun was available.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 29th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Interesting where you get your facts. Try Australia
www.aic.gov.au/statistics...