The arming of teachers exerts a healthy influence ...

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?

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.

This amounts to:

I got an idea to put out that fire.

Quick...grab that pail of Kerosene and toss it on.

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.

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

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 ?

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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