Tennessee passes bill to allow teachers to be armed. (1 Viewer)

[JMB1911A1]

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.

Not always true:

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because of LEOSA's national application but reliance on local certification and standards, it has been alleged that the law has been used as a way for wealthy, unqualified civilians, who may live in states where the ability to concealed carry by civilians is not allowed or difficult to obtain, to use their financial or political ties to bypass local laws by donating time and money to a local jurisdiction and, in return, become an auxiliary or reserve officer. Among those alleged to have participated such schemes include individuals such as Robert Mercer, Steven Seagal, and Dan Bilzerian, and police departments of communities like Hudspeth County, Texas, Oakley, Michigan and Lake Arthur, New Mexico, which shut down its police department in 2018 as a result of its practice of selling badges was exposed.​

Did Steven Seagal go through the same process as you?

 

[JMB1911A1]

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

There are not. LEOSA relies on local certification and standards. Give a big enough campaign contribution and you too can be a deputy sheriff and have LEOSA privileges.

 

[RF667799]

There are not. LEOSA relies on local certification and standards. Give a big enough campaign contribution and you too can be a deputy sheriff and have LEOSA privileges.

So all that "look at me, the ninja cop" stuff is irrelevant.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

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

I’m claiming there are in the ability for me, and everyone like me carrying under LEOSA. I’m suggesting it’s a good idea, as it’s practical and common sensed base, to apply the same across the board.

 

[JMB1911A1]

I’m claiming there are in the ability for me, and everyone like me carrying under LEOSA. I’m suggesting it’s a good idea, as it’s practical and common sensed base, to apply the same across the board.

But the standards that grant LEOSA privileges are NOT the same across the board.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Not always true:

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Because of LEOSA's national application but reliance on local certification and standards, it has been alleged that the law has been used as a way for wealthy, unqualified civilians, who may live in states where the ability to concealed carry by civilians is not allowed or difficult to obtain, to use their financial or political ties to bypass local laws by donating time and money to a local jurisdiction and, in return, become an auxiliary or reserve officer. Among those alleged to have participated such schemes include individuals such as Robert Mercer, Steven Seagal, and Dan Bilzerian, and police departments of communities like Hudspeth County, Texas, Oakley, Michigan and Lake Arthur, New Mexico, which shut down its police department in 2018 as a result of its practice of selling badges was exposed.​

Did Steven Seagal go through the same process as you?

Steven Segal isn’t me or anyone like me. Neither is Shaquille O’Neil.

It would if I had my way. People would be the safer for it as those purchasing would know how to use and keep their guns safe and those carrying them would know the law regarding their use and what’s minimally required to be safe with them on their person as well.

As I’ve stated many times before. We require as much foe owning and driving a car. Why should owning and operating a handgun be different?

 

[Glitch]

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.

Someone needs to point out to this incompetent leftist moron that Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution prohibits retroactive laws: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Someone like this fool should be removed from any position of power since he obviously does not know or care about the US Constitution, like your stereotypical leftist piece of shit.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Steven Segal isn’t me or anyone like me. Neither is Shaquille O’Neil.

It would if I had my way. People would be the safer for it as those purchasing would know how to use and keep their guns safe and those carrying them would know the law regarding their use and what’s minimally required to be safe with them on their person as well.

As I’ve stated many times before. We require as much foe owning and driving a car. Why should owning and operating a handgun be different?

Not the stupid car comparison again. There is no requirement other than having cash to purchase a car. A license is only required to drive it on public roads. One test, very simple, administered at age 16 and you are good to go for the rest of your life.

Personally, imo, LEOSA should only apply to active law enforcement. All retired law enforcement should have to follow the laws that apply to everyone else in their state of residence in order to obtain concealed carry permits. There is nothing magical about being a retired cop.

 

[RF667799]

I’m claiming there are in the ability for me, and everyone like me carrying under LEOSA. I’m suggesting it’s a good idea, as it’s practical and common sensed base, to apply the same across the board.

You're back to holding yourself up as the standard. You really should let yourself out for exhibition purposes.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Not the stupid car comparison again. There is no requirement other than having cash to purchase a car. A license is only required to drive it on public roads. One test, very simple, administered at age 16 and you are good to go for the rest of your life.

Personally, imo, LEOSA should only apply to active law enforcement. All retired law enforcement should have to follow the laws that apply to everyone else in their state of residence in order to obtain concealed carry permits. There is nothing magical about being a retired cop.

And we are back to the circular arguing. Which we’ve made our cases on. No one wants to read again, and neither of us is changing the other’s mind on. All I’ll state further to it is I don’t begrudge you your opinion and I trust you won’t begrudge me mine.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You're back to holding yourself up as the standard. You really should let yourself out for exhibition purposes.

I’ll think about it. Given my state’s proclivity for f***ing me and mine over by breaching their compensation agreements with us I may require a way to generate revenue that doesn’t require me being a Walmart greeter in my 70’s.

 

[Glitch]

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.

Your permission to carry a concealed gun in Alaska comes simply by the virtue of being born and located somewhere in Alaska. It doesn't matter what their job may be, unless they are a prohibited individual, everyone can carry concealed at any age (minors require the permission of their parents/guardians).

As you pointed out, it is a rather silly law. While many police officers are excellent marksmen, there are also many who are not. In the military they give three rankings for weapon's qualification, from lowest to highest: Marksmen, Sharpshooter, and Expert. I'm not sure about the other military branches, but the Marine Corps requires requalification every year. It is possible to do better or worse, and your qualification badge reflects your most recent score. Everyone has to obtain a certain minimum score in order to demonstrate proficiency. Those that failed to achieve that minimum standard were set back two weeks to repeat the firearm course, which nobody wants to do.

My father had already taught me firearm safety and I was proficient with shotguns before the age of 10. However, the Marine Corps was able to teach me new things that noticeably improved my proficiency. It wasn't just about shooting straight either. Proficiency with the firearm also meant knowing how to disassemble, clean, and reassemble the firearm.

So when you are talking about proficiency with a firearm, it really depends on the type of firearm. Obviously law enforcement is going to be more proficient with sidearms than the majority of those in the military. In the Marine Corps only NCOs and Officers were issued a sidearm. Everyone else, including NCOs and Officers, had to be proficient with the M16. While your stereotypical hunter, who has never served in the military or as law enforcement, is probably going to be more proficient with shotguns and either semi-auto or bolt-action rifles, and possibly even bows and arrows, than your typical COP (unless they are also a hunter of course).

While I certainly recommend taking a hands-on course concerning your chosen firearm, it would not be government's place to mandate such training. It also isn't entirely required to be taught by someone. Meaning, someone who has never owned a firearm before can learn on their own to become proficient. It is just a lot faster and better if someone with experience teaches them. I wholly support the NRA Eddie Eagle program that is designed to teach firearm safety to preteens and the NRA Firearm Training program for older kids and adults, in part because it is entirely voluntary.

 

[blueskies2018]

Because the answer to school shootings is shoot outs. What could go wrong?

Does this new law include trans teachers?

So if a school shooting is in progress who do you call to stop it? Is it someone who also has a gun?

 

[blueskies2018]

But teachers are not to be trusted when it comes to reading books to students.

We'll trust them carrying guns in the classroom though? YIKES.

Teachers aren’t trusted to read books to students? Are you referring to the books in school libraries that parents have requested be taken out because they seem pornographic? For instance, the pictures down below are from one of the books parents didn’t want their middle schoolers reading…is this what you are referring to?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

So if a school shooting is in progress who do you call to stop it? Is it someone who also has a gun?

Well yeah its the cops, not some dumb**** Gun Nut off the street. DERP.

 

[blueskies2018]

Well yeah its the cops, not some dumb**** Gun Nut off the street. DERP.

So, teachers are gun nuts off the street? Does that mean we actually should question their education and what books they are giving our children?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Teachers aren’t trusted to read books to students? Are you referring to the books in school libraries that parents have requested be taken out because they seem pornographic? For instance, the pictures down below are from one of the books parents didn’t want their middle schoolers reading…is this what you are referring to?

Whats going on there? Are they poozie grabbing?

 

[Opossum]

Don't forget to arm the kids so that they can protect themselves from the armed teachers.

And, of course, you need armed guards to make sure that the armed kids don't attack the teacher as well as to protect the kids from an attack by the teacher.

And, naturally, you need more armed guards to make sure that the armed guards don't attack the kids or the teacher and to protect the teachers from attacks by the kids and to protect the guards from attacks by the teacher or the kids.

And, obviously, you need even more armed guards ...

Stupid post is stupid. I literally don't have to make response for it because it defeats itself.

 

[blueskies2018]

Whats going on there? Are they poozie grabbing?

What’s a poozie?! Haha either way probably yes

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

What’s a poozie?! Haha either way probably yes

Well theres certainly nothing wrong with grabbing poozies....is there?

 

[blueskies2018]

Well theres certainly nothing wrong with grabbing poozies....is there?

Never, but that and playboy are not necessary books needed in a middle school library

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Good that you agree with me.

Of course I agree with you that no one is 100% safe. There is, however a difference between being 99.5% safe and being 49.5% safe.

Move the goalpost?
Concession accepted.

I see, so you consider gerrymandering and voter suppression features of "free, fair, open, and honest elections". That being your definition of "free, fair, open, and honest elections" I can see why you think that those are what the US has.

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.

You only reinforce my position.

Nope - that is a judicial opinion and is NOT a part of the Constitution of the United States of America. It is as much "fixed law" as "Roe v Wade" is.

I have the right to buy a gun at any time, absent permission fro the state.

Good for you and I'm sure that you avail yourself of that "right" several times per year. However, you seem to forget that "felons" have had that "right" revoked. Any so-called "right" that can be revoked is a "Privilege" and NOT a "Right".

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.

Indeed, any you can buy a gun once you have proven that you meet the terms and conditions set by the US and State governments for doing so.
As you say "Like driving on the roads, you have a privilege, not a right.".

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

Nope. If it can be taken away then it is a privilege and not a right. It may, however, be an "essential freedom" required to maintain the country in any particular desired condition.

Amendment V​

​

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

No mention of guns in that one.

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 do not have "free" anything and that includes healthcare. I have healthcare insurance because I have paid the premiums required to maintain it through my taxes. I have that healthcare insurance because the people of the country want to have it and would toss anyone who seriously proposed tossing out the existing "single payer" healthcare insurance system in favor of a "multi-bureaucracy, profit extracting, partial coverage" one.

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.

It really doesn't matter if I approve or disapprove, I think that walking around armed to the teeth and dressed up like a member of a third-rate mercenary "company" makes the person who is doing it look incredibly silly. I would think the same of someone who walked around wearing a "Herman Munster" costume.

Please feel free to try walking around armed to the teeth and dressed up like a member of a third-rate mercenary "company" around here. Please also be prepared to [1] be laughed at, [2] to answer the question "What the find do you think you are going?" a whole lot., and [3] enjoy a free (heck they won't even send a bill to your healthcare insurance company so you won't have to worry about any "claim related" increase in your insurance premiums) consultation with the local mental health practitioners if your answer to [2] aren't satisfactory.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

Did you know that there is a difference between the meaning of the word "will" and "could"?

The sales of guns are already "registered" and even those which don't require any ATF certification (well, the vast majority of them) are reachable through the records of the credit and/or debit card companies through which the purchases were made?

Maybe you would like to tell me how ensuring that every whacko who has the cash to purchase a gun can do so actually increases everyone's safety? Remember, if you have the "constitutional right" to have the means to "shoot back" that also means that the other guys have the "constitutional right" to have the means to "shoot first".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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

I didn't say that LEOSA did require open carry. What I said was that I'd be even more supportive of such a universal gun safety program if it did. Personally, I have no objection to anyone else knowing that I'm "packing" and I do have a strong inclination to want to know who else around me is doing so as well.

In fact, I wouldn't be totally adverse to the government issuing "free" non-cartridge loading, revolvers to anyone who was able to pass tests showing that they could handle them safely, effectively, accurately, and appropriately. After all, five people with six shots have as many (if not more) chances of dealing with a whacko with a gun as one person with 30 shots does.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

Nope, I see it as a rational solution to a problem. The problem being the guarantee that people without sufficient common sense, personal responsibility and/or accountability, or social conscience have lots and lots of guns that they use capriciously.

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.

Indeed, and where have you seen me say that I have any objection to anyone with those qualities having whatever guns they feel like having? True, I do want to know that they have them if they are around me, but that doesn't mean that I object to them having them.

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.”

Yes, that IS the My Awesome Gun Advocate's line.

Where is the libertarian ideology in that notion? Rights come with responsibility and accountability.

As the staunch defenders of the rights of every whacko to walk around armed to the teeth and dressed up like a member of some third-rate "mercenary" gaggle will tell you, RIGHTS are in the CONSTITUTION and are INVIOLATE, but responsibility and accountability are not, so they are optional.

They are intrinsically connected. You don;t get one without the other.

Well now, doesn't that sort of depend on whether you want to live in a civilized society or in one where "The Law of the Gun" takes priority?