Tennessee passes bill to allow teachers to be armed.

[Mungo Jerry]

I see, so your definition of "safe" is "100% safe"

Less than 100% is some degree of not safe.
You just feel safe, and you do so regardless of the fact nothing in your laws eliminates the possibility oy you being a victim later today,.

If you think that American elections are "... free, fair, open, and honest elections which are not manipulated by the party in power in order to perpetuate their grasp on power regardless of their degree of popular support." then you haven't been paying attention.

On the contrary. The 2000 election, and every election before that,. was free fair open and honest.
No one manipulated it, and no party tried to maintain its grasp on power after its candidate lost.

Show me the place in the constitution of the United States of America where American citizens have the constitutional right to "... right to enter, remain in and leave ..." the United States of America.

I'll show you the jurisprudence,

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)

Kent v. Dulles

supreme.justia.com

et al.

And, by and large, they fail to do so.
Show me the place in the constitution of the United States of America where it says that "Every citizen of (the United States of America) has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.".

No need. The fact a felon may indeed vote in the US is enough to make the point.

Strangely enough I do have the "right to own a gun".

You do not. The state grants you that privilege.
You cannot own a gun until the state grants you the ability to do so.
That's a privilege, not a right.

Indeed, you would be quite correct IF I had never paid into the medicalcare insurance pool myself.

No... I'm right, period.
The state grants you medical coverage; the state can rescind that grant at any time, and you have it only because the state gave it to you.
That's a privilege,. not a right.

Quite frankly, no rational person wants to be able to walk around armed to the teeth and dressed like an extra in a third-rate movie about mercenaries.

Your personal preferences do not create a rational argument.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

If I choose to delegate that power to the government then, yes it does.

Maybe where you are.
Not here. The Constitution prohibits such things.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

By my calculation, the current "whackdoodle right" position is that there should be a minimum of three armed persons....

Straw, man.

 

[RF667799]

I’ve not attacked you personal. I’ve disagreed with you.

Who wrote this?

"Your lucky I don’t have the final say on it. You don’t know half of what is required to make you safe with a ballistic projectile with lethal force. I don’t know if I’d trust you with a Nerf gun."

It’s not established yet. If it came to pass I’d imagine it would be a certification. One would take a class. Gun safety, use of force law, retention could all be covered. It would show that at least basics in these common sense concepts of gun ownership and carry were covered. It would show the basic skills and also present a base so an “I didn’t know.” Aspect would be removed from the equation, making folks more responsible.

Then it's not a case of training someone to the point that their gun CAN'T be taken from them.

Just the basics.

Hang on tight if someone tries to grab it.

You’re being ludicrous (that’s not an attack either, it’s a comment to your behavior specific to this exchange, not you personally). All of this is basic, practical, common sense.

No. All of this is your opinion.

 

[CLAX1911]

Personally I'm opposed to "concealed carry" and don't think that anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed gun.

So criminals who don't obey the law just carry guns and people who obey the law have less advantag?


Other than making sure people will get victimized what's the point of that?

On the other hand, I do support "open carry" (admittedly with a proviso that any person who has NOT established that it is safe for them to be in possession of guns be required to clearly display visible and auditory notice of the fact that they have not done so and are armed. Something along the lines of

Why do you repeat that anybody with a gun is an idiot? Those people probably know more about it than all of the police and all of the military.

View attachment 67506761​

but with full led lighting and the constant sounds of bells ringing.

See above

 

[JMB1911A1]

Kinda like gun registration is the first step to gun confiscation?

Ned Lamont proved that to be true. He is the Democrat governor of CT by the way.

CT governor suggests making 'grandfathered' assault weapons illegal

Despite ban, there tens of thousands of assault weapons are legally owned in Connecticut. Gov. Ned Lamont suggests making them illegal.

www.ctinsider.com

“I think those assault-style weapons that are grandfathered should not be grandfathered,” Lamont told reporters during a media session following the debate at Mohegan Sun. “They should not be allowed in the state of Connecticut. I think they’re killers.”​

​

Never trust a Democrat when it comes to your rights. Ned said the quiet part outlaid and ended up having to quietly bury the story.

Perhaps we should turn all of our schools into little Fort Knox's? Want to include high fencing topped with razor wire around our schools? How about manned gun towers? That might have stopped the Uvalde school massacre right?
Your question is ludicrous my friend. Put more thought into the next one.

 

[JMB1911A1]

So is my suggestion that people who own and carry guns should know how to secure them safely, not have the taken from them and used in others or themselves, and use of force law? Is it not practical, if you own things and are carrying a deadly weapon around with you, that you insure yourself against bad outcomes?

It all seems quite practical common sense to me.

I am only willing to consider your standards if the same benefits that apply to LEOSA apply to all concealed carry holders. 50 states plus DC reciprocity. Ability to carry where law enforcement can carry. After all, if we have to meet the law enforcement standards that you propose, we should get the same benefits.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Who wrote this?

"Your lucky I don’t have the final say on it. You don’t know half of what is required to make you safe with a ballistic projectile with lethal force. I don’t know if I’d trust you with a Nerf gun."

You know, you’re right. I forgot I wrote that. When someone;s right I’ll admit it. On that you were. I apologize.

Then it's not a case of training someone to the point that their gun CAN'T be taken from them.

I never said it was. I said retention training. I’d think it’s obvious that anyone, even someone highly trained, can run into someone better or gave a bad set of circumstances. I keep saying I’m talking basics, common sense stuff.

Just the basics.

Hang on tight if someone tries to grab it.

That’s too basic and below the threshold of common sense. There is an in between. I can say get behind the wheel of a car. Start the engine. Hit the gas. Don’t hit anything. Tears the basics. You need a bit more than that to reach common sense levels.

You’re putting a fun on your person and stepping out into the world. You owe yourself and everyone else a bit more than “hold on tight”.

No. All of this is your opinion.

Common sense is subjective, yet we have a good general idea of what it is. It’s what the majority of us would point to and recognize as such.

 

[JMB1911A1]

And Gov Bill Lee signed it, effective immediately.

Tennessee Governor Signs Armed Teacher Bill

bearingarms.com

Of course, with the training, screening, and permission requirements (that the gun control folks ignore), it will probably be the fall 2024 semester before any armed school staff is present in TN schools.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So is my suggestion that people who own and carry guns should know how to secure them safely, not have the taken from them and used in others or themselves, and use of force law? Is it not practical, if you own things and are carrying a deadly weapon around with you, that you insure yourself against bad outcomes?

It all seems quite practical common sense to me.

Pssst - Don't tell anyone, but that's "Gun Control (Canadian Style)" and evrewunknoz that those KanuKKs is KKKommiez.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Less than 100% is some degree of not safe.
You just feel safe, and you do so regardless of the fact nothing in your laws eliminates the possibility oy you being a victim later today,.

Indeed - not a thing in "the laws", just in the way that the average person views other people.

On the contrary. The 2000 election, and every election before that,. was free fair open and honest.

Except for the gerrymandering and "voter suppression" of course.

No one manipulated it,

Except for the gerrymandering and "voter suppression" of course

and no party tried to maintain its grasp on power after its candidate lost.

True, up to that point the leaderships of the two wings of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party (and the movers and shakers behind those leaderships) had SOME ethics.

I'll show you the jurisprudence,

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)

Kent v. Dulles

supreme.justia.com

et al.

No, you were asked to show where there was a CONSTITUTIONAL right. What you have shown is that there is a "Judge Created right".

You also sort of missed the

"it is "unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United Page 357 U. S. 122 States unless he bears a valid passport. [Footnote 4]"​

(emphasis added)​

bit in the judgment. An American citizen who does NOT have a US passport and who uses their NEXUS card to reenter the United States of America is breaking the laws of the United States of America (admittedly they are incredibly unlikely to be prosecuted for doing so). An American citizen who has their US passport seized at the border MAY NOT LEGALLY enter the United States of America

No need. The fact a felon may indeed vote in the US is enough to make the point.

And the fact that it is NOT automatic for a felon to be able to vote vitiates it.

You do not. The state grants you that privilege.
You cannot own a gun until the state grants you the ability to do so.

Nope, the state certifies that I have sufficient training and ability to do something. Once that certification has been obtained (and the state is NOT the one who does the certification) the state does not prohibit me from owning guns.

That's a privilege, not a right.

And, in the US if you have committed a felony you are not allowed to own guns. Therefore owning guns in the US is a "privilege, not a right" - correct?

No... I'm right, period.
The state grants you medical coverage; the state can rescind that grant at any time, and you have it only because the state gave it to you.
That's a privilege,. not a right.

Since "the state" can invoke any law it wants to, I suppose that your position that EVERYTHING is a "privilege" makes sense to some people.

Your personal preferences do not create a rational argument.

I'm quite willing to grant that your personal preference is to walk around armed to the teeth and dressed like an extra in a third-rate movie about mercenaries at all times.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Maybe where you are.
Not here. The Constitution prohibits such things.

Indeed.

And if the people of the United States of America rescinded the 13th Amendment you'd, once again, be able to own slaves legally.

And if the people of the United States of America rescinded the 21st Amendment you'd no longer be able to drink beer at ball games.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ned Lamont proved that to be true. He is the Democrat governor of CT by the way.

CT governor suggests making 'grandfathered' assault weapons illegal

Despite ban, there tens of thousands of assault weapons are legally owned in Connecticut. Gov. Ned Lamont suggests making them illegal.

www.ctinsider.com

“I think those assault-style weapons that are grandfathered should not be grandfathered,” Lamont told reporters during a media session following the debate at Mohegan Sun. “They should not be allowed in the state of Connecticut. I think they’re killers.”​

​

Never trust a Democrat when it comes to your rights. Ned said the quiet part outlaid and ended up having to quietly bury the story.

If you think that the US government, in a land wedded to "The Cult of the Gun", would be any more efficient and/or effective in establishing the necessary "National Gun Registry" than the government of Canada was, I have some really nice bottom land on Mercury that I can let you have for a very good price.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I am only willing to consider your standards if the same benefits that apply to LEOSA apply to all concealed carry holders. 50 states plus DC reciprocity. Ability to carry where law enforcement can carry. After all, if we have to meet the law enforcement standards that you propose, we should get the same benefits.

Not an unreasonable position and, actually, one that I'd be prepared to support PROVIDED that the weapons had to be carried in plain sight (just like the police weapons are).

 

[RF667799]

Not an unreasonable position and, actually, one that I'd be prepared to support PROVIDED that the weapons had to be carried in plain sight (just like the police weapons are).

Concealed carry is referred to and being discussed. Including those of law enforcement.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Indeed - not a thing in "the laws", just in the way that the average person views other people.

Good that you agree with me.

Except for the gerrymandering and "voter suppression" of course.
Except for the gerrymandering and "voter suppression" of course

Move the goalpost?
Concession accepted.

No, you were asked to show where there was a CONSTITUTIONAL right. What you have shown is that there is a "Judge Created right".

You mean where the right is -protected - by the constitution, as that's how our system works.
HYG:
(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S.125-127.

Nope, the state certifies that I have sufficient training and ability to do something. Once that certification has been obtained (and the state is NOT the one who does the certification) the state does not prohibit me from owning guns.

You only reinforce my position.
I have the right to buy a gun at any time, absent permission fro the state.
You have a privilege granted to you by the state, once you prove you meet its terms and conditions; absent that permission, you cannot buy a gun
Like driving on the roads, you have a privilege, not a right.

And, in the US if you have committed a felony you are not allowed to own guns. Therefore owning guns in the US is a "privilege, not a right" - correct?

Any and every right, including the right to life, may be taken away though due process (see: Amendment 5)

Since "the state" can invoke any law it wants to, I suppose that your position that EVERYTHING is a "privilege" makes sense to some people.

Nothing here changes the fact you only have free health care because the state gave it to you after meeting its terms and conditions.
Like driving on the roads, you have privilege, not a right.

I'm quite willing to grant that your personal preference is to walk around armed to the teeth and dressed like an extra in a third-rate movie about mercenaries at all times.

And the fact you do not approve doe sot constitute a rational argument against it.
Your statement to that effect is nothing but a failed attempt at belittlement.

 

[JMB1911A1]

If you think that the US government, in a land wedded to "The Cult of the Gun", would be any more efficient and/or effective in establishing the necessary "National Gun Registry" than the government of Canada was, I have some really nice bottom land on Mercury that I can let you have for a very good price.

Not the point. The point is that registration (which CT has) will lead to confiscation if Democrats have their way.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Not an unreasonable position and, actually, one that I'd be prepared to support PROVIDED that the weapons had to be carried in plain sight (just like the police weapons are).

LEOSA does not require open carry for off duty and retired law enforcement. In fact, the biggest part of LEOSA is that it allows retired police (civilians) to carry in all 50 states and DC.

You probably need to get familiar with the law in question.

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Pssst - Don't tell anyone, but that's "Gun Control (Canadian Style)" and evrewunknoz that those KanuKKs is KKKommiez.

You see that the difference.

I see the requirement of knowing of what one is doing when owning or strapping on a deadly device to their person as an act of common sense, requiring personal placing responsibility and accountability. You see it as a method of control.

If I own a gun I know at least the basics of how to store it and operate it safely. If I carry it I know at ieastvthe basics if how not to lose it from my person, when it’s OK to draw and point it. Fire it. Where that bullet will go, what damage it can do, by both desired and undesired consequence. It is a matter of being responsible and accountable.

So many of those posting here make it sound like, “It’s my absolute right and that right says nothing about my having to be responsible or accountable.” Where is the libertarian ideology in that notion? Rights come with responsibility and accountability. They are intrinsically connected. You don;t get one without the other.

 

[RF667799]

You see that the difference.

I see the requirement of knowing of what one is doing when owning or strapping on a deadly device to their person as an act of common sense, requiring personal placing responsibility and accountability. You see it as a method of control.

If I own a gun I know at least the basics of how to store it and operate it safely. If I carry it I know at ieastvthe basics if how not to lose it from my person, when it’s OK to draw and point it. Fire it. Where that bullet will go, what damage it can do, by both desired and undesired consequence. It is a matter of being responsible and accountable.

So many of those posting here make it sound like, “It’s my absolute right and that right says nothing about my having to be responsible or accountable.” Where is the libertarian ideology in that notion? Rights come with responsibility and accountability. They are intrinsically connected. You don;t get one without the other.

Your permission to carry a concealed gun in all 50 states, comes simply by virtue of being a retired cop. The most fumble ass, near sighted, can't hit the side of a barn non-ninja, retired Barney Fife has the same permission.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Your permission to carry a concealed gun in all 50 states, comes simply by virtue of being a retired cop. The most fumble ass, near sighted, can't hit the side of a barn non-ninja, retired Barney Fife has the same permission.

Yup. LEOSA is a bad law because retired cops should have to follow the same procedures as other civilians.

Heck, most cops can't shoot for shit. Some of the worst and most dangerous competitors I have ever seen were cops. The only ND I know of at a match that resulted in the victim shooting himself was, you guessed it, a cop.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

I see the requirement of knowing of what one is doing when owning or strapping on a deadly device to their person as an act of common sense, requiring personal placing responsibility and accountability.

And, if such a requirement is mandated by the state as necessary to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, it violates the constitution.

 

[RF667799]

Yup. LEOSA is a bad law because retired cops should have to follow the same procedures as other civilians.

Heck, most cops can't shoot for shit. Some of the worst and most dangerous competitors I have ever seen were cops. The only ND I know of at a match that resulted in the victim shooting himself was, you guessed it, a cop.

Guess who is exempted from the Illinois AR-15 "ban".

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Your permission to carry a concealed gun in all 50 states, comes simply by virtue of being a retired cop. The most fumble ass, near sighted, can't hit the side of a barn non-ninja, retired Barney Fife has the same permission.

That’s simply not true.

It comes with having gone through a psychiatric evaluation and annual mental health record screening when I got the job. Same fir a complete criminal background check AND investigation, interviewing people I knew/know, employers, etc., AND an annual criminal history check. It comes with twice annual evaluations of my proficiency and continuing understanding, PLUS updating on law changes, etc.

I presume you know some of this and I’ve stated the rest often enough. So that comment of yours above simply is not factual.

 

[RF667799]

That’s simply not true.

It comes with having gone through a psychiatric evaluation and annual mental health record screening when I got the job. Same fir a complete criminal background check AND investigation, interviewing people I knew/know, employers, etc., AND an annual criminal history check. It comes with twice annual evaluations of my proficiency and continuing understanding, PLUS updating on law changes, etc.

I presume you know some of this and I’ve stated the rest often enough. So that comment of yours above simply is not factual.

You're claiming there are proficiency standards within that law?