So You Want to "Arm" Teachers?

So if Trump decides to confiscate our guns, that would make him a liberal? Originally Posted by MT Pockets

No. As an agenda it is primarily the Liberal elements of our society (country) who oppose gun possession and are regularly attempting to narrow the types of firearms citizens may possess.

To facilitate their agenda they distort the source, scope, and/or meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as well as attempt to tag every incident in which a firearm becomes involved as an example of why there should be no guns in this country except .... THEIRS!

Trying to define their "point of view" is a challenge:

One day it's those guns are not for hunting. Another it's weapons for a militia ONLY. Then (a new one on me!) NOW it seems like well you would NOT stand a chance with that thing against the U.S. military so there's no point in having them.

At the other end of the spectrum I'm not a fan of the standardized CHL programs around the country, because the training and continuing training is insufficient and inadequate for the average person to be injecting themselves in what amount of law enforcement activities. Self-defense is one thing, but defense of others is another, particularly in crowded, confined environments that have the potential of being low-light, if not dark with multiple shooters carrying heavier weapons.

And finally in a feeble attempt to overcome the lack of training and/or skill sets ... "bio-tech" devices are recommended for the firearms that should NOT be there in the first place ... rather than employing "bio-tech" devices to efficiently allow entrance into the buildings and/or premises ... with armed guards monitoring the entrance location like we experience ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY and ALL OVER THIS WORLD .. using video and audio monitoring AS BACKUP.

I keep remembering some of the comments in the Texas Senate on the final day of their debate when passing the original CHL statute in Texas. I was standing there with a couple of DA's (THE DA's .. not assistants) and it was difficult for us to keep straight faces.

I'm also reminded of the Austin, Texas, "clean water" Liberals who relocated large water rats to their water supply to eat the water weed congesting the power facility at the dam with the resulting infestation of water rats the size of beavers overtaking the lake and the properties surrounding it. When "we" explore fixes ... look down the road!

Trying to define their "point of view" is a challenge:

One day it's those guns are not for hunting. Another it's weapons for a militia ONLY. Then (a new one on me!) NOW it seems like well you would NOT stand a chance with that thing against the U.S. military so there's no point in having them. Originally Posted by LexusLover

+1


Haha! You forgot, the "those are needed for self defense" argument.

"Door" -- singular -- not plural, you genuinely stupid and disingenuous SOB.


You're in a class of extraordinarily stupid all by yourself, M T Brain Socket. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You most likely knew what he meant and even if you did not, it has been explained by both him and I. You clinging to the language like the Pedant you are does not change what his contention was. You are a fucking idiot.

Once someone elaborates on their statement enough that it is clear what they meant a normal person would argue the pros and cons of that. You on the other hand are like a retarded snapping turtle that is clinging on like the faggot ass ferret you are

No. As an agenda it is primarily the Liberal elements of our society (country) who oppose gun possession and are regularly attempting to narrow the types of firearms citizens may possess.

To facilitate their agenda they distort the source, scope, and/or meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as well as attempt to tag every incident in which a firearm becomes involved as an example of why there should be no guns in this country except .... THEIRS!

Trying to define their "point of view" is a challenge:

One day it's those guns are not for hunting. Another it's weapons for a militia ONLY. Then (a new one on me!) NOW it seems like well you would NOT stand a chance with that thing against the U.S. military so there's no point in having them.

At the other end of the spectrum I'm not a fan of the standardized CHL programs around the country, because the training and continuing training is insufficient and inadequate for the average person to be injecting themselves in what amount of law enforcement activities. Self-defense is one thing, but defense of others is another, particularly in crowded, confined environments that have the potential of being low-light, if not dark with multiple shooters carrying heavier weapons.

And finally in a feeble attempt to overcome the lack of training and/or skill sets ... "bio-tech" devices are recommended for the firearms that should NOT be there in the first place ... rather than employing "bio-tech" devices to efficiently allow entrance into the buildings and/or premises ... with armed guards monitoring the entrance location like we experience ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY and ALL OVER THIS WORLD .. using video and audio monitoring AS BACKUP.

I keep remembering some of the comments in the Texas Senate on the final day of their debate when passing the original CHL statute in Texas. I was standing there with a couple of DA's (THE DA's .. not assistants) and it was difficult for us to keep straight faces.

I'm also reminded of the Austin, Texas, "clean water" Liberals who relocated large water rats to their water supply to eat the water weed congesting the power facility at the dam with the resulting infestation of water rats the size of beavers overtaking the lake and the properties surrounding it. When "we" explore fixes ... look down the road! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I will first comment that apparently anyone that disagrees with you is a liberal by your standards it sounds.

Secondly it seems you have not taken the time to understand my position on all of this. Let me reiterate my opinions.

I support the 2nd amendment
I am a gun owner
I think the AR15 is protected by the second amendment via several avenues.
I do not think teachers should carry guns for the most part.
I think you are right about securing the school over handing out guns.


So lets look at it this way if you think we the citizens could win against the military now. Would the banning of the AR15 tip the scales? Do you think we could rise up with less? How much less? Bow and arrows? Maybe we could all get some brass knuckles LOL!

+1


Haha! You forgot, the "those are needed for self defense" argument. Originally Posted by grean

I like how after I stated they should not be able to take them away he still comments as though I said the opposite. Him and IB must be related.

So tell me how this is working out for you now days LOL! While It may have been useful when we all had the same weapons, but the Citizens are so out-gunned now the only way a state would even have the slightest chance would be if tall 50 joined forces. If you think the latest uprising of conservatives is enough to overthrow a government you are delusional. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Yes you did say even with all 50 states there would only have a slightest chance.

You keep saying you did not say this or that when you did.

I'm not sure if your only point is to keep arguing for the sake of arguing.

You'll need to cite instances where schools are using electric fences and paying the high insurance premiums to employee electric fences around young students for your argument to be cogent and rational.

However, FYI, there are several good books out that describe how WWII POWs, 18 to 25 year-olds, who, under the watchful eyes of armed guards, weren't supposed to be able to sneak around and cut through the perimeter wire with tools they weren't supposed to have ... but did. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And you do not think guns would run the insurance cost up?
As for the POW's now you think the kids are trained soldiers LOL! How many guns did those POW's smuggle in and go on a shooting spree?

I like how after I stated they should not be able to take them away he still comments as though I said the opposite. Him and IB must be related. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Yes you did say even with all 50 states there would only have a slightest chance.

You keep saying you did not say this or that when you did.

I'm not sure if your only point is to keep arguing for the sake of arguing. Originally Posted by grean

I have no idea what you are trying to say. My opinion is that with the bias in arms, the Government has the upper hand. I assume you are pitting my personal opinion of something neither of us know what the outcome would be with your reckless self assured stance that a handful of folks could find a hidden unguarded cache of weapons and over throw the government. I am also stating that while some of you keep saying the second amendment protects you from regulation, there has already been enough regulation to compromise your ability to defend yourself.
I am also saying that while I support reasonable regulations the AR15 would qualify as a common militia weapon of choice. The fact I do not want armed teachers does not mean I want guns confiscated any more than LL does.

And you do not think guns would run the insurance cost up?
As for the POW's now you think the kids are trained soldiers LOL! How many guns did those POW's smuggle in and go on a shooting spree? Originally Posted by MT Pockets

You're too stupid to realize that what they smuggled in was forbidden escape tools, jackass, despite being watched 24/7 by guards carrying submachine guns and rifles, you idiot moron. BTW, seventeen dead students is a steeper price than any insurance policy cost, M T Brain Socket. And an incident with a 24/7 electrified fence is a helluva lot more probable than a weapons incident involving a properly trained teacher in a 40 hour work week, M T Brain Socket.

You most likely knew what he meant and even if you did not, it has been explained by both him and I. You clinging to the language like the Pedant you are does not change what his contention was. You are a fucking idiot.

Once someone elaborates on their statement enough that it is clear what they meant a normal person would argue the pros and cons of that. You on the other hand are like a retarded snapping turtle that is clinging on like the faggot ass ferret you are
Originally Posted by MT Pockets

You'd be the jackass pendant making an issue about language, M T Brain Socket, as your stupid-ass denies and equivocates in post, after post, after post about language. You jumped in putting both feet in your mouth, M T Brain Socket.

You're too stupid to realize that what they smuggled in was forbidden escape tools, jackass, despite being watched 24/7 by guards carrying submachine guns and rifles, you idiot moron. BTW, seventeen dead students is a steeper price than any insurance policy cost, M T Brain Socket. And an incident with a 24/7 electrified fence is a helluva lot more probable than a weapons incident involving a properly trained teacher in a 40 hour work week, M T Brain Socket.




You'd be the jackass pendant making an issue about language, M T Brain Socket, as your stupid-ass denies and equivocates in post, after post, after post about language. You jumped in putting both feet in your mouth, M T Brain Socket. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

He must look like a pretzel to his neighbors then, what with his feet in his mouth and his head in his ass !

That's an issue with many aspects of public education. That has been one basis for decentralizing public education in this country away from the Fed's Education Department with a "one size fits all" approach. Some regions may be better suited for one solution while others not so good. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Hell ya, I agree. Arming teachers is not something I would expect to work out well just anywhere. Besides Callisburg hasn't had a real shooting incident so how affective their program is, is unknown.


Jim

Besides Callisburg hasn't had a real shooting incident so how affective their program is, is unknown.Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

That is pretty much my point. One can only speculate as to the causes for no attacks, but the continued revelations out of Florida are indicating that the failures of the various levels of LE have as much to do with the school shooting as anything. So if in a particular local LE and PARENTS intervene before something festers into a shoot out with teachers that is the preference, IMO. Outsiders may be reluctant to enter certain areas, particularly small communities because the local know them as "strangers" and perhaps will watch them more closely (LE has a habit of "jacking up" strangers just to see who they are).

The City is home to grades 6 – 12 of the Callisburg Independent School District with over 700 students and staff.

No "gun" licenses, but ....

Sexually Oriented Business
Provides for the licensing and regulation of sexually oriented businesses.

Has anyone worked out how many teachers armed with their CC pieces will it take to go up against a person in body armor with a AR?

Has anyone worked out how many teachers armed with their CC pieces will it take to go up against a person in body armor with a AR? Originally Posted by bamscram

No, but be careful. It's parrot season again!

I do know how to cull them though ....

.. contained in the "Armed Teacher Instruction" packet will be a proposed will form with blanks for the variable information and a form for the designation of beneficiary on the recipient's teacher retirement and life insurance death benefits .... along with a coupon for Depends samples.

Has anyone worked out how many teachers armed with their CC pieces will it take to go up against a person in body armor with a AR? Originally Posted by bamscram

Is there some sort of mathematical formula?

Jim