Posted by Jack
Oh, if we only had a ban on sharp knives…Sacramento where’s your help? We should ban knives too, because if it would save one child, isn’t it worth it, I mean what price can you put on a child? I for one, can get along my State approved chopsticks.
Knives are responsible for the deaths of 8763 people in the last five years and the injuries of thousands. in Dec. of 2012, a Chinese man slashed 22 innocent little children outside a primary school. He was derranged and somehow he had possession of a real big knife. It was far bigger than he needed to eat with!
We need laws to prevent stabbings and slashings! Wait, we have We need to ban knives in order to protect the children…because if it saves one child…you know.
Chico police reported an attempted murder occurred about 2:15 a.m. today at Sycamore Pool at the One-Mile Recreation Area in Bidwell Park. An unidentified was found bleeding near the pool with multiple stab wounds. The was attacked by two young men in their 20s with shaved heads, who fled the scene. Suspects are described white or Hispanic, one being about 6-foot-2, 160 pounds, and the other about 5-foot-8 with a slender build.
In an unrelated knife attack a woman was reportedly robbed at knife point while walking on the bike path south of West Sacramento Avenue Wednesday night.
The 26-year-old unidentified female was walking when a man on a bicycle approached her at about 10:20 p.m., and held a knife on her while demanding her purse. The suspect who was described as being a 20- to 25-year-old white or Hispanic male with medium build wearing a hooded sweatshirt, baggy jeans and a bandanna covering his face.
Deputies responded to a call of a knife assault about 5:15 p.m. to Sixth and Sacramento streets. The victim was 51-year-old David Garcia Navarro, of Hamilton City. He was seated in his car when 26-year-old Gilberto Corona slashed his face and neck.
Prior to this it was a set of stabbings…Detectives are looking into what led to the assaults and why they took place near the same location, said Chico police Lt. Mike O’Brien.
Officers responded to The Beach, 191 E. Second St., at about 1 a.m. Saturday after reports of a stabbing that occurred outside the bar, according to police. They were able to find a man with a stab wound to the middle of his back.
In 2010 you were 8 times more likely to be stabbed by a knife than shot by a rifle. If you were to take all the number of police officer shootings, and the number of all justified uses of a firearm, and deduct that from the total of people shot, you would find there are unlawful stabbings.
Jack I understand your passionate plea for help and let me just add, “I feel your pain.”
It might be important to expand the width and breadth of this violence lobby…after all, it IS for the children…and the children are counting on us to create a risk free society!
Giving up the sport that helps define the American spirit might be emotionally painful…but we must all be prepared to sacrifice for this important cause.
If not now…when?
An aside: Complete information voters will want to know the full quote:
A conservative message! How did that get in here?
Scissors, don’t forget scissors!
Here you go Jack, Piers Morgan’s replacement.
Meet the Extreme Anti-Gun Advocate Who Wants to Ban ALL Firearms, ‘Lethal’ Knives and ‘Anything That Can Hurt Anybody’:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/28/meet-the-extreme-anti-gun-advocate-who-wants-to-ban-all-firearms-lethal-knives-and-anything-that-can-hurt-anybody/
Peggy, now that’s the message that I want to get out here..by the dems. This is the democrat message that everybody needs to hear so they will understand what’s going on in Sacramento.
Jack, you did notice that in most of the instances you pointed out, no one actually died, right?
Chris, your point being (and I’m just guessing) that a gun is far worse because it’s more lethal, right? Well, maybe, but it depends.
I know a gun is louder and attracks a lot of attention. I know it’s less likely to hit it’s target. I know it leave evidence behind, and it’s more likely the user will get caught as a result of using a gun. Now the knife is silent, deadly and leaves little evidence behind. But, that part doesn’t matter as much as this… if you’re being shot or stabbed, at that moment as your life flashes before your eyes, I’ll bet you’ll wish you had gun to defend yourself. And that’s what we’re talking about here Chris, a gun for defense because it’s our right. We’re talking about law abiding citizens having a right to have a gun under the 2nd Amendment. One that is legally owned and legally used to defend themselves when the cops can’t be right there to protect them.
We find it foolish that liberals want to take away all our guns because of a few bad examples. These are criminals who possess guns illegally and/or used them illegally. So, tell me Chris, how do more gun laws stop those criminal types? Do you honestly think the criminals will comply with your new gun laws?
Disarming the innocent…that’s the opposite of smart.
This here Chris’s figuring is •Like tryin’ to poke a cat out from under the porch with a rope.
Jack: “And that’s what we’re talking about here Chris, a gun for defense because it’s our right. We’re talking about law abiding citizens having a right to have a gun under the 2nd Amendment. One that is legally owned and legally used to defend themselves when the cops can’t be right there to protect them.”
Jack, I have been clear that I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns for self-defense. The most radical proposal I have supported here has been simply requiring background checks for all gun sales. This is already required at gun shows in California, and is required at every licensed gun store in America, because it works. It makes it harder for criminals, the mentally ill and minors to get guns. It deters straw buyers, like the girl who bought guns for her friends that turned out to be the Columbine killers. She couldn’t be prosecuted for straw buying because of the loophole. The loophole is a way for people to illegaly purchase guns and not get caught for it. Why would you, an officer of the law, support this?
“We find it foolish that liberals want to take away all our guns because of a few bad examples.”
But most liberals DON’T want this, aside from “a few bad examples.”
“So, tell me Chris, how do more gun laws stop those criminal types?”
We’ve been through this before.
“Do you honestly think the criminals will comply with your new gun laws?”
The ones I support certainly make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns. And it’s not just about criminals; last week I read an article about a young man who bought a gun over the Internet, and accidentally shot and killed his friend. The purchase was illegal, but because of the loophole which allows people to sell guns over the Internet, that didn’t matter. The kid got the gun anyway and the seller won’t be prosecuted, because he didn’t break any laws. Requiring background checks for Internet purchases could have prevented this. The kid wasn’t a hardened criminal; he wasn’t the type to buy a gun from some dealer on the street. Neither was the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine shooters. These things happen because our current laws are not sufficient to stop them. Requiring background checks for such purchases is simple common sense.
“Disarming the innocent…that’s the opposite of smart.”
I agree, but nothing of the sort is occurring. The SC has already ruled that handgun bans are unconstitutional, so what do you have to be afraid of? You’re prioritizing an imaginary problem over a very real one.
“Disarming the innocent…that’s the opposite of smart.”
I agree, but nothing of the sort is occurring. The SC has already ruled that handgun bans are unconstitutional, so what do you have to be afraid of? You’re prioritizing an imaginary problem over a very real one.
Chris okay, we can agree that a background check, but it doesn’t end there does it? We have this constant barrage of gun-grabbing, ownership impeding, expense causing, laws and they all have one big objective…to make guns so costly we can’t buy them, so regulated we can comply, and so restricted in the home that they lose their original purpose for self defense until you might as well say forget it.
If you can’t see this it’s only because you choose not too. Look at the radicals in Sacramento writing bill after bill to destroy gun owners. You can’t dismiss this as some fiction. It’s happening right now, read the bills, see the new laws, see the news, there’s a blatant pattern here and it’s quite clear what the objective is to me and a few million others, wondering why not you too?
At some point possibly Chris will explain which “points” he wishes to add to the current background check procedure (in his OWN words) for a foolproof background check that will stop the illegal distribution of guns. Also he might elaborate on how he feels his points will work without infringing of Gun Ownership rights. But in his own words not those of others. The fact that he says he supports the current 2nd Adornment gun ownership does not have a true ring to it. Chris seems to create an obscure issue within the body of this post, to justify his point. Currently his comments about Calif gun laws and generally those of the county as a whole are his words “working” yet he feels the punishment should be directed toward the seller who was following those laws and not the individual who knowingly broke them, why? Clearly this is where the fault begins, is that not person we need to stop? along with the criminals who commit crimes to obtain weapons. Why does he see the need to direct punishment to the legal suppliers of guns? If we are going to add laws, or expand background searches, lets open up criminal and the mentally ill data bases to searches. This should be done without imposing further hardships on the 2nd Amendment. A lot of these Anti-gun proposals are political in nature, and as Jack points out designed to SLOWLY erode our existing rights. Maybe a solution is letting current strict laws to really punish the fools that cause the death of others, or in the case of Fast and Furious we keep divisive Government schemes out of our lives entirely! Chris comes across in his argument as trying to placing blame on other than the person responsible, this appears to me as a typical political diversion of what Politicians wish to gain, verse punishing those who are to blame It does nothing to solve the problem and most than likely is designed to divert how ineffective the elected majority in California really are! And frankly it does little more than whip up support for unneeded larger Government that will eventually become even more intrusive. How do criminals today get the weapons they use into California to commit crimes? Why are we not focusing on that? These new and anal retentive laws are not going to solve that problem. What the new Liberal progressive laws (that are most likely unconstitutional) are intended to do is prevent gun ownership in California, pure and simple. Also they will have little effect in preventing future gun crimes in any manner. Once more, they are designed for nothing more than outlawing guns in California! They only prevent gun ownership from civil law abiding people, who may eventually need them for their own protection, while these same law makers constantly reduce funding for effective Police and Fire departments protection. Chris really doesn’t give a solution for these problems; he is in reality just slyly attacking legal gun ownership.
Jack: “Chris okay, we can agree that a background check, but it doesn’t end there does it?”
Ah, the slippery slope fallacy. Joe Shaw wrote about it here:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/outsidebox/2013/03/28/slippery-slope-syndrome/
The fact is it’s the job of Congress to set certain limits. The Republicans in the background check essentially argued that they had no ability to set a reasonable limit–that background checks will inevitably lead to a complete stripping of the second amendment, and tyranny. It’s the same argument people use when they say gay marriage will lead to legalizing sex with ducks.
But we set limits all the time. Lowering the drinking age to 18 hasn’t led to lowering it to 9. Allowing women to vote hasn’t led to women instituting a matriarchy where men are forcibly castrated (an actual fear of anti-woman writers in the 19th and 20th centuries). Letting the races intermarry hasn’t caused the white race to go extinct.
That’s why the slippery slope argument is stupid. Decisions should be judged on their own merits.
I agree that many of the gun laws recently instituted in CA were stupid. If you believe they are unconstitutional, take it up with the Supreme Court. You may be able to sway me. They have clearly been swayed in gun rights activists’ direction before, when they decided that the Chicago handgun ban was unconstitutional. I agreed with this decision. We can set reasonable limits. But the arguments by the NRA and Republicans in the debate over background checks were completely unreasonable.
Harold, I don’t have time to reply to your entire WALL OF TEXT, but I will make two points:
1) Expanding background checks to include gun shows and internet sales does not infringe on law-abiding gun owners’ rights. It PROTECTS law-abiding gun owners from those who would skirt the law to obtain guns they are not legally entitled to own. If a background check in a licensed owner’s store doesn’t violate the Second Amendment, why does the same type of check at a gun show?
2) I am not trying to shift blame. The young man who accidentally shot his friend is responsible for illegally buying a gun and handling it in a stupid manner. But, at the same time, if you sell a gun to a stranger and do not get a background check on them, even if you are not legally required to, I truly believe you are doing something morally wrong, and are morally responsible for recklessly putting people in danger.
Chris, your creating a repetitive discussion on your support of Federal based Background checks. Once more you only interested in repeating someone else’s thoughts, then claiming your support of the idea. As I asked in my prior post; How exactly do you enhance the current background check(s)procedure to create a effective and foolproof background check that could stop the illegal distribution of guns. If you would, please explain how a Federal mandate is the answer and clarify your statement of “HOW IT WILL PROTECT” the rights of legal gun ownership within the scope of our 2nd amendment, I would listen.
California is a prime example of those states with such controlling laws are no better at stopping criminals from having illegal guns than those without, Chicago might be better though. I have stated more invasive Federal policy is a abomination of freedom and does nothing but create more laws with which to control State policy. They will do nothing to PROTECT 2nd amendment gun ownership (as Chris would like us to believe), like wise they also do nothing in preventing criminals trafficking of guns. Your second point about you shifting blame I do not know how you legislate stupid with just awareness but blind ignorance of the problem? There are many more “legal rights” now that kill more frequently than guns, do you feel the need to legislate everything in life?
Harold: “As I asked in my prior post; How exactly do you enhance the current background check(s)procedure”
I’m not sure the current background check procedure needs to be enhanced. In my opinion it just needs to be applied to gun shows and Internet sales. But I would be open to hearing about ways it could be improved. Does that answer your question? I’m really not clear on what exactly you mean.
“to create a effective and foolproof background check that could stop the illegal distribution of guns.”
Why do you say “effective AND foolproof?” A law can be effective without being 100% foolproof. No law has perfect effectiveness, but that seems to be the standard you are applying to expanding background checks. Nothing will ever “stop” the illegal distribution of guns completely. But we can take steps to reduce the illegal distribution. I think I have shown evidence here many times that expanding background checks to include gun shows and Internet sales would reduce illegal gun distribution. Gun shows are a huge source of illegally trafficked guns, and criminals (as well as dumb kids) take advantage of that. I’ve also shown how expanding background checks deters straw buyers. I am not sure what more you want from me.
“If you would, please explain how a Federal mandate is the answer and clarify your statement of “HOW IT WILL PROTECT” the rights of legal gun ownership within the scope of our 2nd amendment, I would listen.”
Harold, do you believe that background checks at gun stores violate our rights under the 2nd amendment? If not, then why do you fear that background checks at gun shows would do so?
“California is a prime example of those states with such controlling laws are no better at stopping criminals from having illegal guns than those without,”
I’ve shown you statistics before showing this isn’t true. California has lower rates of gun violence and gun deaths than neighboring states such as Arizona, which have very loose gun laws.
“Your second point about you shifting blame I do not know how you legislate stupid with just awareness but blind ignorance of the problem?”
I don’t know what this is supposed to mean; grammatically speaking, it’s not even a sentence. Could you try to write in a clearer manner? I often have trouble interpreting what you are trying to say because you don’t express yourself clearly in writing.
Offered without comment…
http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/apps-california-s-universal-registration-scheme
Everybody needs to see this – Thanks RHT.
Chris: “I don’t know what this is supposed to mean; grammatically speaking, it’s not even a sentence. Could you try to write in a clearer manner? I often have trouble interpreting what you are trying to say because you don’t express yourself clearly in writing.”
You arrogant little twit. Now, you’re the self-appointed grammar cop. I know your wonderful mother taught you better, so will assume you had a memory lapse and forgot you manners on how to treat others.
How dare you attack someone for the way they write! Not everyone has had the wonderful opportunity at a higher education as you have, myself included. After attending ten different schools in twelve years, because my dad was in the Army, I can tell you what a verb, adjective, pronoun and noun are because I had the subject matter over and over. But, punctuation is something I struggle with because I have no memory of it ever being taught. Spelling is another area I struggle with because phonics was big back then and I never had a spelling list and test.
So, Chris the next time you have trouble understanding what I or anyone else has written, remember what your mom taught you and ask nicely for clarification. We’ll all think better of you for it and you won’t bring shame upon your mother again.
Get it young man?!!
Hopefully people will understand it as well!
Chris, when your receptive to understanding the many failures of large government, and you have realized there is a world beyond the dependency factor prevalent with the Liberal mindset, we could have a productive discussion.
Until then seek Government employment.
Simply stated, we will never have the ability control every thing thats dangerous when misused. The one exception should be when it comes to Political types! because bad legislation is always a byproduct of flawed thinking.
Possibly I made that clear enough for you to understand!
Peggy,
This is not an “attack:”
“I don’t know what this is supposed to mean; grammatically speaking, it’s not even a sentence. Could you try to write in a clearer manner? I often have trouble interpreting what you are trying to say because you don’t express yourself clearly in writing.”
This, however, is:
“You arrogant little twit.”
See the difference? Nowhere did I name-call or personally insult Harold. I certainly did not demean him for his level of education. I simply expressed my lack of understanding and requested he write in a clearer manner. There’s nothing at all wrong with what I said or how I expressed myself.
You responded with personal attacks, not me. (Projection seems to be the order of the day here.)
Harold: “Simply stated, we will never have the ability control every thing thats dangerous when misused.”
But that is not an argument for why we shouldn’t try to control any specific danger. Certainly you agree that some dangerous things should be controlled. Do you believe in seatbelt laws? Having a legal drinking age? Regulations on roller coasters? Fire safety laws? Laws against shooting up heroin in the public square?
I could use your same logic to argue against any of these laws. That’s because your argument is so vague as to be meaningless. I have given you specifics about how expanding background checks would reduce illegal gun trafficking while not harming the 2nd amendment rights of anyone. If you are going to make an intelligent argument against that, you need to provide specifics of your own, instead of relying on generalizations.
Radicals in the Democrat Party dream of confiscation and often say so in that special way that Democrats have where they appear to be perfectly calm, harmless, and reasonable.
Breitbart:
This follows the tyrannical creed that includes brainwashing future generations.
Gun Packing Senator Diane Feinstein wants to disarm bit by bit and says so in no uncertain terms.
Governor Cuomo says confiscation “could be an option”…
Rep Sheila Jackson Lee takes a soft approach:
The problem isn’t guns.
The problem is a society that’s been built on progressive policies, progressive appeasement, progressive entitlement, and a progressive social order lacking in religious training and filled with the broken families that are the remnant of feel good narcissist liberal polices and mores.
Such an atmosphere breeds macho criminals and thugs.
The problem is deftly pushed aside when guns are made the villain. A Frontpage Magazine article, “Gun Violence is Not a Republican Problem, It’s a Democratic Problem,” that spells out the problem progressives refuse to acknowledge:
Democrats can look at all of that and insist with a straight face that the problem is too many law abiding citizens with free access to guns. The solution is resariction…then more restriction…then more…and more…ultimately the solution becomes total disarmament.
Radical progressive Democrats are stupid…but they are tricksters who make their way in the world by selling lies. They tell us they can fix the problem of youth violence in the cities and attacks on schools and movie theaters by restricting and disarming farmers, ranchers, skeet shooters, hobbyists, collectors, and ordinary law abiding citizens who keep guns for personal protection in the home. Stupid!
Progressives feel helpless to address the real problem and so they look away from the reality that their policies made this mess. They focus on guns.
Radical progressive Democrats are in control of the Democrat Party. They have the presidency and control of the Senate. These folks don’t love freedom and they don’t respect our Constitution. They look at their cities, see youths killing each other, and believe that only when they can control everyone and everything will they restore peace and security.
Control is the ultimate solution for men and women without strong moral underpinnings and direction.
Communists use control. Nazi’s favored control. Socialists favor a softer form of control but it is always expanding and encroaching further into new areas of private citizen’s lives.
The American Spectator deconstructs the “common sense” progressive approach to “gun violence”.
Chris once more for has been caught for his passive aggressive manner of berating people, and it must have hit a nerve. Peggy’s comment was nothing more that “plain english” about how he conducts himself on the boards. I think Peggy was on point, and Chris understood Peggy’s point, but that might come across as self serving on my part 🙂
Chris’s has dug in on his position about the need for universal back ground checks, and so have I about the misuse of them by government. I will note once more that his comment,about“Background checks and how they can protect gun owner’s rights” has little factual application!
This link was posted by RHT447 says more about how government abuses power, and as RHT447 stated “needs no comment, but I would say it certainly is not protecting gun owners rights:
http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/apps-california-s-universal-registration-scheme
Newspaper articles contain quotes from Anti–Gun people like Mark Leno that states he is proud that California tracks and identifies people, that “California” has determined a need to have their guns taken from them. and we are not talking about hardened criminals, nope we are talking every citizens that are law abiding people.
When I posted my thoughts about Government misuse of power I wrote; ‘Simply stated, we will never have the ability (to) control every thing that’s dangerous when misused. The one exception should be when it comes to Political types! Because bad legislation is always a byproduct of flawed thinking’
Chris only used part of my comment, and that was out of context (of course by accident) in a attempt of lessening my point about flawed Government laws, and inept law makers, especially those we have in California currently.
Chris also commented on my point of; “California is a prime example of those states with such controlling laws (that) are no better at stopping criminals from having illegal guns than those without,”
Chris replied; “I’ve shown you statistics before showing this isn’t true. California has lower rates of gun violence and gun deaths than neighboring states such as Arizona, which have very loose gun laws”. Chris clearly understood my comment was about criminals and their access to weapons would not be hampered by background checks. Chris chose to spin it in incorrectly in his reply.
As to California and Arizona, U.S. Census Bureau figures show that California has 3.4 per 100K populous verse Arizona’s 3.6 per 100K populous of gun murders in 2010. That, to me is a equally balanced number of crimes between the two States that Chris used to try and support his statics of stickier laws generate lower gun deaths, and how these two States have such opposing gun laws. The report also shows DC at 16.5 per 100K, which is the biggest number on the report…. humm!
And because I think this video is more telling about governments abuse of laws I will post the link once more, really folks you need to watch this, as it could happen in a home like yours…
http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/apps-california-s-universal-registration-scheme
And Chris there might be some more mistakes in grammar, so be it, thats who I am. You just need to be a gentleman and accept me at that. Learn to challenge the content, not attack the commentator!
Once again, not a single specific point from Tina or Harold about how background checks violate the second amendment, nor any explanation of why they wouldn’t work to prevent criminals from obtaining guns even though the law enforcement community agrees that gun shows and Internet sales are a huge source of illegally trafficked guns.
Harold, California’s gun death rate is well below the national average. Tina, you like to use metropolitan cities to make the point that tough gun laws don’t work, but that is selective information. Studying states gives a better impression of what works and what doesn’t, and states with tougher gun laws do have lower rates of gun violence than states with looser gun laws.
If anyone has a specific point about expanding background checks, a policy which is supported by 90% of Americans, a majority of Republican voters, and a majority of NRA members, please let me know. If you just have generalized fearmongering about the hopes and dreams of a few radicals, I’m not really interested in engaging that.
Chris: “…not a single specific point from Tina…”
Bologna! You just don’t like the point I made. Guns are not the problem. We have a BIG social problem and that is not going to be fixed by closing a loop hole.
It’s not unusual that you would not consider this obvious point. You are a person who favors big government control and who supports the party that believes the problem is guns rather than criminals and refers to the problem as “gun violence”, lending human characteristics to an inanimate object! Avoiding the problem can be expected from a person who supports justice guided by the likes of Eric Holder, a man that has advocated for confiscation of all guns…a sure path to tyranny!
Closing the loop hole will not stop criminals and thugs from obtaining weapons…they will just change their behavior. Robberies will increase or they will fashion lethal weapons if they have to. In England knives and bats do the same damage. Bombs are an alternative that cannot be dismissed. Closing loop holes will not alter criminal intent.
Any new gun legislation would represent giving another inch to a control freak radical party that has no respect for the Constitution…and says so! Democrat solutions and free wheeling social mores are responsible for the criminality we are experiencing…now bleeding into little towns and cities like Chico. My grandson was followed and harassed last night by a group of thugs showing gang colors and attitude.
This is not my America and it is not the kind of society I want for future generations. I repeat…it isn’t the guns!
The radical Democrat Party will not support giving poor parents stuck with bad schools a voucher. They are beholding to education unions and want those campaign dollars and volunteers. That is a much more serious issue to me than this silly loop hole crap that is only a prop like everything else Democrats make an issue for votes. It might stop a few guns from changing hands but it will not stop the criminal from obtaining, stealing, or making weapon!
As far as your not wanting to discuss this further, it’s fine with me. Your party’s stupid approach’s to problems never work! The list of failures is quite long and the people are fed up!!!
What’s so is that we have had enough! No doubt we’re a bit cranky given nearly five years of obuse.
Tina, you nailed it again. It was Obama’s budget that ended the DC school voucher program for all of those poor kids, taking away their chance at a better education. What a shame and it was even John Boehner and the Republicans who tried to save it. Guess we all know now just how important it is for Obama and the Democrats to get the votes of all of those union paying teachers and staff, and all of those highly paid administrators. He had to keep those union dues and pay checks going out at the cost of all of those kid’s futures.
Obama Budget Would End D.C. School Vouchers:
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — President Barack Obama’s budget proposal includes no new funding for a private school voucher program for D.C. students.
The nation’s capital is the only jurisdiction where federal tax dollars are used to subsidize private-school tuition. Needy students can receive up to $12,000 a year to attend private schools of their choice.
At the Obama administration’s urging, Congress agreed in 2009 to phase out the program. But it was revived last year as part of a budget deal with House Republicans.
House Speaker John Boehner is a big proponent of the voucher program and is likely to try to get the funding reinstated. Students already participating in the program would be allowed to continue under Obama’s budget.
Many Democrats say the money would be better spent on public schools.
Sasha and Malia Obama, the president’s daughters, attend the private Sidwell Friends School in the district where annual tuition costs nearly $25,000.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/obama-budget-would-end-d-c-school-vouchers/