Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to foreigner's blog Subscribe


Special Features


I took a quick look at the Broward County document that set out the details of the policy and it seems to me that it relates to misdemeanors. It specifically states that " Behavior that rises to the level of a felony.... are not included herein."

Without claiming any US legal knowledge, another quick search seems to indicate that except for a domestic violence misdemeanor, misdemeanors in general on a persons record do not prevent a gun purchase in Florida. Felony crimes are taken into account.


In addition, the Broward document is not open ended, meaning that there are escalating consequences as the number of misdemeanors increases. 4 incidents as a maximum in a school year require a referral for consultation with law enforcement. Law enforcement retain discretion to arrest and charge a student, if their view is that is the appropriate response.

It is unclear to me whether it is fair to say the policy is flawed, or whether it is difficult in practice to apply and was inappropriately applied in Cruz's case. Reading the article, I'm not sure the author was very interested in the second option. It is also unclear to me whether a number of misdemeanors on Cruz's record would have prevented a gun purchase, but there are posters here who can clarify this.

"It's unlikely that I would run into a building where shots are being fired, but if someone were shooting at me and I had a weapon, I very likely would use it to defend myself. See the difference?

#10 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2018-02-24 10:37 AM | REPLY | FLAG:"

A somewhat random comment, but I assume you are making the point that an armed teacher facing a shooter will use a gun for defense.

It is my understanding that the suggestion is that some teachers be armed, not all teachers - I think Trump indicated 20%, so 1 in 5. Under your logic, if the shooter choses a classroom where the teacher is unarmed ( a 4:1 chance ), then you would not expect an armed teacher nearby to run into the classroom under attack. Having armed teachers under these circumstances has a limited useful outcome.

Should an armed teacher abandon his/her assigned class to protect another under attack? Some attacks have more than one culprit. What if a teacher choses to assist an unarmed teacher under attack and exposes his/her class to attack by a second individual? Should a teacher even be asked to make this decision? I've just scratched the surface with my examples - the real world problems of arming teachers are far more significant than those advocating the approach chose to acknowledge.

The whole idea arming teachers is ill-considered. There is no greater sign of America's disfunction in my eyes than an inability of it's citizens, regardless of political allegiance, to determine that the best way to protect their children is to prevent guns from getting on campus, rather than reacting with off-setting force once the gunfire starts.

"You rely on fake news publishing fake polls that lead to your surprise when Trump won in a landslide. You might as well link to Huff Post polls. Enjoy your daily dose of truth.

#53 | POSTED BY REX_BUYT AT 2018-02-10 07:40 PM | REPLY"

Are you seriously claiming that Trump won in a landslide? While there seems to be no generally accepted definition, this link gives guidance:


Since Trump did not win the popular vote, clearly he did not win that by landslide.

Trump won the electoral vote with 306; the link suggests a landslide requires 375 electoral votes. Maybe it should be 350, maybe even 325, but it doesn't matter. Only someone who has closed their minds to objective facts thinks Trump won in a landslide.

"GOP mega-donor Charles Koch and his wife donated about $500,000 to Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) joint fundraising committee, just days after the GOP tax plan was passed."



I say half a mill was winning.

Then there's this:

"US House speaker Paul Ryan has come under fire after citing a school worker who was $1.50 (£1) a week better off because of recent tax cuts."



$78 a year tax cut. I guess there's winning and there's winning.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable