So You Want to "Arm" Teachers?

Or just keep them out.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ing/373012002/

https://www.circa.com/story/2018/03/...chool-shooting

Fences do keep students from wandering away during the day, but they also keep would be vandals and other trespassers out (cuts down on liability insurance and pay-outs). None of the schools I attended K-12 had fences. The neighborhood kids played on the schools' tracks, the bleachers, hurdles, high jump, tennis courts and playground equipment after school and on weekends. One boy broke his arm on the jungle gym. The jungle gym is no longer there. All of those schools have fences today.

I think the word "Militia" trips people up. Who makes up the Militia, people do. All American citizens in part make up the Militia. The 2nd Amendment clearly states the "Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall Not Be Infringed". Now as far as teachers arming themselves in school, that could work. The problem with that is in todays screwed up society most teachers are mentally ill Liberals that teach children liberal bullshit. So that just puts guns in the hands of the mentally ill which is what we are suppose to be avoiding.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

LOL! Okay, so should they have guns knowing they are "mentally ill liberals" as you say. Sans the liberal comment, Democrats and Moderates agree that teachers for the most part are not the kind of folks that should be packing.
So now that we have established that guns are for the Militia, why don't we treat them the same way the military does.
Does the word Armory mean anything to you?

LOL! Okay, so should they have guns knowing they are "mentally ill liberals" as you say. Sans the liberal comment, Democrats and Moderates agree that teachers for the most part are not the kind of folks that should be packing.
So now that we have established that guns are for the Militia, why don't we treat them the same way the military does.
Does the word Armory mean anything to you? Originally Posted by MT Pockets

The only "we" you have have is the "wee pee-wee" you're fapping with your hand, M T Brain Socket. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe on the individual American citizen's right to own and bear arms: without regard to a militia or an armory, M T Brain Socket.

Wait! You are going to "mansplain" what to me?

How to read a SCOTUS opinion?

As for your first ignorant statement ... errr.... question?

Answer: For the same reason I don't look at the earlier cases regarding all of the "bill of rights" and most particularly the 4th and 5th amendments but also the 2nd amendment.

As for the retarded statement that:

"The second amendment does not give you the" right to bear arms" It only prevents the federal government from infringing on your right to."

It also "prevents" the state government from doing so as well, and at least Texans have a similar provision in our State Constitution ... but ...

.... you have it back assward ...

I have the right to bear arms period! I never said the 2nd amendment gives me that "right"! I was born with it and so was every other person born in this country or born to parents from this country! The governments don't give me my "rights" PROTECTED by the Bill of Rights!

One cannot "infringe" on a right that does not already exist ... by definition.



But if you want to be a "strict constructionist" and "assume" that the right to "bear arms" was given in the 2nd amendment for the purpose of arming a "well regulated Militia" as a "necessary to the security of a free State" then there exists a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" that would adequately defend them against the weapons of the government, which the government elects to unleash upon "the People" to deprive them of "a free State"!

Weapons vs. Weapons!

Otherwise your meaning of the 2nd Amendment would be worthless ... if the Government can assure that "the People" lack the type of arms to successfully defend them against being deprived of "a free State"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I am sorry you are so fucking dense. Anyone with half a brain knows that every state has the right to regulate arms and every case settled by the Supreme court has agreed. You have shown what a fucking idiot you are once again. The bill of rights has one purpose and that is to keep the Government from taking your ability to defend yourself from them or anyone else for that matter. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that all states must allow its citizens to bear arms. You do realize if it did. the second amendment would have nullified it. Maybe you need to look up what the word infringe means.


What I really find amusing is that we both agree the Government cannot take your guns, but you only think so because the Republicans say so. You really have no idea what the reason was behind the amendment it seems. You thinking earlier SCOTUS rulings that were made when the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was more commonplace have less bearing shows your lack of critical thinking.

LOL! Okay, so should they have guns knowing they are "mentally ill liberals" as you say. Sans the liberal comment, Democrats and Moderates agree that teachers for the most part are not the kind of folks that should be packing.
So now that we have established that guns are for the Militia, why don't we treat them the same way the military does.
Does the word Armory mean anything to you? Originally Posted by MT Pockets

I don't want to treat anything the way Military does. The Military has nothing to do with my constitutional rights anyway. All this gun control talk is getting old and the debates on the second amendment is ridiculous. This country was not founded on the basis of safety it was founded on the basis of Freedom and Liberty. Freedom has it's dangers its just the way the world turns. It's been said by many people many times over " you can have Dangerous Freedom or Safe Slavery (in the social sense), but you can't have both". Even President John F. Kennedy said once that man should live the way he was intended to live, Free and Independent. Chipping away at the Second Amendment would lessen man's ability to do that. It will also give rise to the dilution of other Amendments until the Constitution is gone completely.

Jim

The only "we" you have have is the "wee pee-wee" in your hand, M T Brain Socket. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe on the individual American citizen's right to own and bear arms: without regard to a militia or an armory, M T Brain Socket. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Armory no. Militia yes. And that wee pee-wee as you affectionately call it is enough to choke you I bet.
The Government does not give or take you right to bear arms. The states are in control of that.
Maybe you should take a closer look at what the inspiration of the second amendment was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin...tion_of_Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Bill_of_Rights


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

I don't want to treat anything the way Military does. The Military has nothing to do with my constitutional rights anyway. All this gun control talk is getting old and the debates on the second amendment is ridiculous. This country was not founded on the basis of safety it was founded on the basis of Freedom and Liberty. Freedom has it's dangers its just the way the world turns. It's been said by many people many times over " you can have Dangerous Freedom or Safe Slavery (in the social sense), but you can't have both". Even President John F. Kennedy said once that man should live the way he was intended to live, Free and Independent. Chipping away at the Second Amendment would lessen man's ability to do that. It will also give rise to the dilution of other Amendments until the Constitution is gone completely.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

While I pretty much agree with your opinion of how things should be, It does not change the fact those that wrote the Bill of Rights had a different opinion. Take a look at the mindset of the people who influenced it.

Here is a question. Why do we almost never see this school shooting shit in the Ghetto? Because of security and metal detectors is why.

Handing a firearm with the requisite responsibility to a teacher may be proposing a change to "existing reality," but it makes zero sense when the school district has a standing police officer .... Originally Posted by LexusLover

English 101 should ought of learned ya that 'a teacher' is different from 'all teachers'. Parkland had a standing Deputy in attendance, who was later joined by 3 additional. How'd that work out for the parents of the 17 lives lost? Notwithstanding, I didn't say any 'ol 'a teacher', now did I? Go on, you can tell us - we already know the answer.

unless, of course, your "assessment" for instance of the Austin ISD school police officers is that a teacher would be better suited to function as a police officer in the classroom than those officers who have already been trained, requalified, and provided additional training on top of that they already have.
Is that your "assessment" ... teachers make better cops? Even Austin cops? Originally Posted by LexusLover

My 'assessment' is - Parkland had a trained, requalified, and provided additional training on top of that, later backed up by 3 additional, of same, and people died. On the other front, I happen to believe and hope, that an Austin cop would have utilized their training, pumped up the adrenaline and saved lives in a similar situation.

And I didn't advocate having an armed cop in every classroom ... I've been saying ... protect at the perimeter ...

just like airports, government buildings, concerts, sports events, and recreational facilities.

As for your solution you HAVE TO HAVE all teachers armed! And their substitutes when they are absent. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nor did I say that every teacher 'HAVE TO HAVE' should be armed. Though you say I did, a mere 35 words into the above. Do you routinely make up evidence?

Even the most simple logic would say a single cop at the perimeter is not adequate. Security requires layers and you probably actually know that. Some physical, some administrative and some by design plus monitoring of the above. Some visible and some not visible.

English 101 should ought of learned ya that 'a teacher' is different from 'all teachers'. Parkland had a standing Deputy in attendance, who was later joined by 3 additional. How'd that work out for the parents of the 17 lives lost? Notwithstanding, I didn't say any 'ol 'a teacher', now did I? Go on, you can tell us - we already know the answer.



My 'assessment' is - Parkland had a trained, requalified, and provided additional training on top of that, later backed up by 3 additional, of same, and people died. On the other front, I happen to believe and hope, that an Austin cop would have utilized their training, pumped up the adrenaline and saved lives in a similar situation.



Nor did I say that every teacher 'HAVE TO HAVE' should be armed. Though you say I did, a mere 35 words into the above. Do you routinely make up evidence?

Even the most simple logic would say a single cop at the perimeter is not adequate. Security requires layers and you probably actually know that. Some physical, some administrative and some by design plus monitoring of the above. Some visible and some not visible. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Lexus and a few others will twist and take what you say out of context nearly every post. Even if they agree with you ! LOL!

Armory no. Militia yes. And that wee pee-wee as you affectionately call it is enough to choke you I bet.
The Government does not give or take you right to bear arms. The states are in control of that.
Maybe you should take a closer look at what the inspiration of the second amendment was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin...tion_of_Rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Bill_of_Rights


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 Originally Posted by MT Pockets

You already have a choke hold on your wee pee-wee with your little finger, M T Brain Socket.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008))

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788




.

English 101 should ought of learned ya that 'a teacher' is different from 'all teachers'. Parkland had a standing Deputy in attendance, who was later joined by 3 additional. How'd that work out for the parents of the 17 lives lost? Notwithstanding, I didn't say any 'ol 'a teacher', now did I? Go on, you can tell us - we already know the answer.



My 'assessment' is - Parkland had a trained, requalified, and provided additional training on top of that, later backed up by 3 additional, of same, and people died. On the other front, I happen to believe and hope, that an Austin cop would have utilized their training, pumped up the adrenaline and saved lives in a similar situation.



Nor did I say that every teacher 'HAVE TO HAVE' should be armed. Though you say I did, a mere 35 words into the above. Do you routinely make up evidence?

Even the most simple logic would say a single cop at the perimeter is not adequate. Security requires layers and you probably actually know that. Some physical, some administrative and some by design plus monitoring of the above. Some visible and some not visible. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Those 4 “trained” guards were ordered by their superiors not to go into the school. That’s how that worked out.

Here is a question. Why do we almost never see this school shooting shit in the Ghetto? Because of security and metal detectors is why. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

I don't think that is quite the reason. Schools in the ghetto are under funded so Metal detectors are probably out the school systems budget. The real reason actually is that a large percentage of students are armed.


Jim

Those 4 “trained” guards were ordered by their superiors not to go into the school. That’s how that worked out. Originally Posted by bambino

Why would that be, hmm

Jim.