4
   

The arming of teachers exerts a healthy influence ...

 
 
TommyG
 
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 06:51 am
I cannot but maintain the idea of Arkansas teachers' carrying guns after all.
Well, surely after the attack last year at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. I can understand parents, who worry about safety of their children at our schools. But I can never agree with those of them, who refuse to rely on school employees and teachers to protect students rather than hire someone. Take, for instance, recent Arkansas law that has allowed arming teachers there (www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/11/panel-rules-13-arkansas-) with 9 mm handguns. After their undergoing 53 hours of training with police and weapons instructions, of course!
The matter is that after the arming of school staff discipline in most school districts in Arkansas has become steel hard! If earlier the very teen-agers, especially children of comers from Muslim countries here, could openly offer violence not only towards their equals in age, but also towards their teachers, whom they usually valued a fig, then now they have really changed their tune. Thus, the arming of teachers exerts a healthy influence even on uncontrolled students, not speaking of more serious threats, eh?
 
PUNKEY
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 07:53 am
You're kidding, right?

Better screening at the front gate, then at the front door can stop all this nonsense. School campuses should be closed.

OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 08:05 am
@TommyG,
TommyG wrote:

I cannot but maintain the idea of Arkansas teachers' carrying guns after all.
Well, surely after the attack last year at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. I can understand parents, who worry about safety of their children at our schools. But I can never agree with those of them, who refuse to rely on school employees and teachers to protect students rather than hire someone. Take, for instance, recent Arkansas law that has allowed arming teachers there (www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/11/panel-rules-13-arkansas-) with 9 mm handguns. After their undergoing 53 hours of training with police and weapons instructions, of course!
The matter is that after the arming of school staff discipline in most school districts in Arkansas has become steel hard! If earlier the very teen-agers, especially children of comers from Muslim countries here, could openly offer violence not only towards their equals in age, but also towards their teachers, whom they usually valued a fig, then now they have really changed their tune. Thus, the arming of teachers exerts a healthy influence even on uncontrolled students, not speaking of more serious threats, eh?
9mm has little STOPPING POWER.
It does not deserve our confidence.

When I was in school, from age 8 on up, I brought a .38 caliber revolver
to school each day until eventually I upgraded to a .44 for better stopping power.
I did not actually need it until a few decades later, for personal defense.





David
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 11:11 am
I think it should be compulsory for all children above the age of six to be given intensive bazooka training, and when their little arms are strong enough, taught how to accurately throw splinter grenades.
Parents could then attend craft lessons on how to make reflective ammo belts so the kids don't get run over on the way to school, and a firing range, complete with Osama dummies could be erected next to the nursery playground.
Any child not wishing to bear arms should be derided for being unamerican, and tarred and feathered at the end of each term.

God bless America.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 12:32 pm
It seems clear to me that this clown is not a native speaker of English. I suspect a Russian propagandist who just wants to stir the turd.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 12:41 pm
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
I think it should be compulsory for all children above the age of six
to be given intensive bazooka training,
Well, I respect your right to your opinion, Lordy,
but one does grow weary of carrying bulky,
heavy shoulder-mounted weapons around all the time.
Thay r rather un-wieldy for use against compact handguns,
e.g. a .44 caliber revolver with a 2 inch barrel (my choice).



Lordyaswas wrote:
and when their little arms are strong enough,
taught how to accurately throw splinter grenades.
I dunno, Lordy.
I think thay 'd be more comfortable with little 9mm MP5s
or lesser calibrated 4.6mm MP7s -- very slight recoil. (Blessings be upon H&K.)
Those r very, very sweet little submachineguns.
Do u prefer the MP5 or the MP7 ?


Lordyaswas wrote:
Parents could then attend craft lessons on how to make reflective ammo belts so the kids don't get run over on the way to school, and a firing range, complete with Osama dummies could be erected next to the nursery playground.
OK, call me olde fashioned, but I still like to use Marx & Lenin as targets.
The children shud compete for places on the school gunnery teams
as young as possible, tho; witness the Director of Civilian Marksmanship programs.
Alas, I was never sufficiently accurate to make the school teams.




Lordyaswas wrote:
Any child not wishing to bear arms should be derided for being unamerican,
U mean thay 've stopped doing that??


Lordyaswas wrote:
and tarred and feathered [???] at the end of each term.
Now, that seems a bit harsh, Lordy; arguably, its child abuse.
The purpose of their being well-armed is for them
to successfully avoid child abuse.




Lordyaswas wrote:
God bless America.
He did





David
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 03:22 pm
"He did"

And then the paleface arrived.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 03:47 pm

I wish for a restoration of the status quo ante
so that my face 'd be a lot paler than it is.





David
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Oct, 2013 03:51 pm
@PUNKEY,
Closed in what way Punkey? Lock all doors and don't let the kids out?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 05:47 am
This amounts to:

I got an idea to put out that fire.

Quick...grab that pail of Kerosene and toss it on.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 11:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
It only amounts to that for those of you who want to see an unarmed US. Tell me once again how those Gun Free Zones are working? I'm pretty sure the stats would show there have been more school shootings since gun free zones were created then before they existed.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 11:25 am
@Frank Apisa,
Surely the most FUNDAMENTAL and un-alienable right (as Thomas Jefferson put it),
is the right to effectively defend your life from the predatory violence of man or beast.

Authority to interfere with that right was NEVER granted to any government
within the geografical USA; not federal, not state, not local.
Only naked USURPATION of fraudulent and un-Constitutional authority
can enact gun control.

Let any supporter of authoritarianism disprove that
by citation to competent authority of the time.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 11:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
This amounts to:

I got an idea to put out that fire.

Quick...grab that pail of Kerosene and toss it on.
Did u mean "toss it on" the arsonist ?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 11:53 am
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

It only amounts to that for those of you who want to see an unarmed US.


Obviously you have me mistaken for someone who wants to see an unarmed US.

I am not one of those people.

And all I can tell people who are "those people" is: You are dreamers. I ain't ever gonna happen.


Quote:
Tell me once again how those Gun Free Zones are working?


N0t really sure, but I can say this: In places where there are no guns...there are no shootings.

If you want to dispute that...let's go at it.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure the stats would show there have been more school shootings since gun free zones were created then before they existed.


Like I said...I would not know. But "more guns" as a solution to "too many shootings"...is like using Kerosene to put out a fire.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 11:56 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Surely the most FUNDAMENTAL and un-alienable right (as Thomas Jefferson put it),
is the right to effectively defend your life from the predatory violence of man or beast.


If you say so!

Quote:
Authority to interfere with that right was NEVER granted to any government
within the geografical USA; not federal, not state, not local.


I doubt you are correct here.


Quote:
Only naked USURPATION of fraudulent and un-Constitutional authority
can enact gun control.


You do not determine what is and what is not Constitutional, David. The SCOTUS does that. And the SCOTUS has made many rulings that seem to directly contradict you.

Quote:
Let any supporter of authoritarianism disprove that
by citation to competent authority of the time.

David


You are a lawyer, David. Has the SCOTUS ever affirmed any gun restriction laws?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 11:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
This amounts to:

I got an idea to put out that fire.

Quick...grab that pail of Kerosene and toss it on.
Did u mean "toss it on" the arsonist ?


Nope. I mean toss it on the fire, David. I suspect you knew that.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 01:19 pm
@Frank Apisa,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Surely the most FUNDAMENTAL and un-alienable right (as Thomas Jefferson put it),
is the right to effectively defend your life from the predatory violence of man or beast.


Frank Apisa wrote:
If you say so!
Which right is MORE fundamental
than the right to fight back against predatory violence??
Please tell me that? The right to have a census @ ten years?
Remember the USSC holding in the CRUIKSHANK case
qua fundamental rights and the First and Second Amendments?



DAVID wrote:
Authority to interfere with that right was NEVER granted to any government
within the geografical USA; not federal, not state, not local.


Frank Apisa wrote:
I doubt you are correct here.
In that case, will u be good enuf to cite to where
Constitutional authority was granted to any government federal, state, or local
to interfere with the citizen's right to defend himself from getting killed???





DAVID wrote:
Only naked USURPATION of fraudulent and un-Constitutional authority
can enact gun control.

Frank Apisa wrote:
You do not determine what is and what is not Constitutional, David.
The SCOTUS does that.
Yeah?? I thawt that the Authors of the Constitution did that.
If the USSC ruled that upon the basis of the 19th Amendment,
women cannot vote, then the court wud not be doing its job
(like a bank teller who sneaks a wad of money into his pants).
Women wud still have a Constitutional right to vote,
but that right wud be VIOLATED by the derelict court,
the same as a mugging victim retains his right to NOT be robbed
in the street, but that right is violated by his mugger, tho it still exists.
See what I mean, Frank ?



Frank Apisa wrote:
And the SCOTUS has made many rulings that seem to directly contradict you.
O, really ??
HOW many?? Which ones were those?? Please indicate.
I (respectfully) disagree with u.



DAVID wrote:
Let any supporter of authoritarianism disprove that
by citation to competent authority of the time.

David





Frank Apisa wrote:
You are a lawyer, David. Has the SCOTUS ever affirmed any gun restriction laws?
Yes, but in light of HELLER and MILLER
the filosofical rug has been pulled out from under those few decisions.
The future will take care of them.
My (posted) point was that the authoritarians cannot point to anywhere
in the US Constitution that government is granted the authority to interfere.





David
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Oct, 2013 01:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Surely the most FUNDAMENTAL and un-alienable right (as Thomas Jefferson put it),
is the right to effectively defend your life from the predatory violence of man or beast.


Frank Apisa wrote:
If you say so!
Which right is MORE fundamental
than the right to fight back against predatory violence??

Please tell me that? The right to have a census @ ten years?
Remember the USSC holding in the CRUIKSHANK case
qua fundamental rights and the First and Second Amendments?


The fundamental rights, as I see them, David...are the "rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This incredible insistence on the part of some for the rights conferred under the 2nd Amendment...seems to be interfering with all three of those fundamental "rights."

More guns equal more violence...no matter how you rationalize. We have more guns BY FAR than any of the other industrialized nations...and we are BY FAR the most violent of the industrialized nations.

Perhaps this right to protect ourselves from violence can best be obtained by having fewer guns around. In other words...you may be correct that that "right" is "the most fundamental"...but the reasoning that follows may be very defective.

Quote:

DAVID wrote:
Authority to interfere with that right was NEVER granted to any government
within the geografical USA; not federal, not state, not local.


Frank Apisa wrote:
I doubt you are correct here.
In that case, will u be good enuf to cite to where
Constitutional authority was granted to any government federal, state, or local
to interfere with the citizen's right to defend himself from getting killed???




As I mentioned, David, you are a lawyer. Do you, as a lawyer, know of any cases decided by the SCOTUS that limited firearm ownership in any way.

If you do...then that is your answer.

Why would you want a layman to set it out for you?



Quote:

DAVID wrote:
Only naked USURPATION of fraudulent and un-Constitutional authority
can enact gun control.

Frank Apisa wrote:
You do not determine what is and what is not Constitutional, David.
The SCOTUS does that.
Yeah?? I thawt that the Authors of the Constitution did that.
If the USSC ruled that upon the basis of the 19th Amendment,
women cannot vote, then the court wud not be doing its job
(like a bank teller who sneaks a wad of money into his pants).
Women wud still have a Constitutional right to vote,
but that right wud be VIOLATED by the derelict court,
the same as a mugging victim retains his right to NOT be robbed
in the street, but that right is violated by his mugger, tho it still exists.
See what I mean, Frank ?


Frankly, David...no I do not.

I will respectfully stick with my contention that YOU do not determine what is or is not Constitutional...but the SCOTUS can.


Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
And the SCOTUS has made many rulings that seem to directly contradict you.
O, really ??
HOW many?? Which ones were those?? Please indicate.
I (respectfully) disagree with u.


As I mentioned, David, you are a lawyer. Do you, as a lawyer, know of any cases decided by the SCOTUS that limited firearm ownership in any way.

If you do...then that is your answer.

If you are saying that the SCOTUS has never upheld a law limited in any way the right to weapons...I stand corrected.

Is that what you are suggesting?



[quote[
DAVID wrote:
Let any supporter of authoritarianism disprove that
by citation to competent authority of the time.

David




Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
You are a lawyer, David. Has the SCOTUS ever affirmed any gun restriction laws?
Yes, but in light of HELLER and MILLER
the filosofical rug has been pulled out from under those few decisions.
The future will take care of them.
My (posted) point was that the authoritarians cannot point to anywhere
in the US Constitution that government is granted the authority to interfere.
David


Once again, you are a lawyer and know much more about how the legal system works in this country. If you are saying that the SCOTUS has no standing to rule on whether or not certain laws that might restrict gun ownership...I will have to take your word for it...and stand corrected.

Is that what you are saying?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Kiss Your Gas Goodbye - Discussion by cjhsa
Why I Have A Gun - Discussion by cjhsa
Pravda: Ameericans, Keep Your Guns - Discussion by gungasnake
I'm at War - Discussion by cjhsa
We'll All Pay - Discussion by cjhsa
Obama on Guns and Concealed Carry - Discussion by cjhsa
The New American Greeting - Discussion by cjhsa
The ACLU Let Me Down - Discussion by JoeBruno
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The arming of teachers exerts a healthy influence ...
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/15/2019 at 01:56:32