Devil505
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Messages
- 3,512
- Reaction score
- 315
- Location
- Masschusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
You created an absurd scenario out of what he said.
That's your opinion & you have a right to be wrong. (which you are now exercising)
I like to add a little humorous exaggeration to make my point. (not everything is devoid of humor. You should try it sometime.)
Yeah, including nukes. I want my own silo.Under all circumstances/locations & with any type of weapon?
Wasn't this your quote?
Why yes, yes it was...But what in that quote suggests the scenario you outlined? I suggested armed teachers, not commandos teaching.
Do we collectively (the government) have a right to regulate/control a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights?
Originally Posted by Ikari
You shouldn't be able to buy guns with cash? People who wish to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the People are complete and total idiots. All there is to it.
I would suggest that a teacher carrying an M-60 around would be considered WELL armed!:lol:
(obvious exaggeration to lighten the topic a bit but quite accurate as well)
"WELL armed" indeed.
While I don't mind a bit of light-hearted fun, I disagree with the "quite accurate as well" bit. In no remotely rational world could I see teachers toting M-60s. Nor, in fact, anything remotely close to such. Thus, I did not imagine that someone would suggest they would.
I think that exact opposite... since people came up with the Rights, it is people that can void or change the Rights.
Anybody who does not understand this concept needs to be seriously ignored.
The dilemma (of course) is where do you draw the line & who draws it?
Is a 38 revolver enough?
Maybe a 44 magnum?
Do you force teachers to carry weapons?
Police need very regular training to stay proficient with their weapons. Where would a teacher get the extra time?
Would an armed teacher just be a ready target for a suicidal student to take her gun away & kill classmates?
There is no end to these questions & arming teachers is a horrible idea in terms of the safety our our kids, imo.
Perhaps.
As stated when I introduced this topic, it was one possible partial solution.
And it could be implemented successfully, IMO.
We'll just agree to disagree.
Personally, I can;'t think of a profession LESS LIKELY to be trainable to safely use lethal weapons around young children than school teachers.
Shoot-Don't Shoot situations require a full time, police/military mindset that can't be safely learned on a part-time basis.
A downside I can see is the potential for intimidation from armed teachers directed towards students.
Such would have to be watched carefully.
Personally, I think security at the entrances would be a far easier and less invasive method than arming teachers.
As to the "full-time vs. part-time" argument, assistants for teachers could help.
And I was not thinking of actually training teachers as law enforcement officers, just to the extent that they would be able to selectively target a threat, and defend themselves and their students. True, this would reduce the time they had to focus on teaching...
You probably have no idea how difficult the actions you pose (above) are to actually do in the real world.
This is kinda long & from another forum where I explained a small portion of DEA's Special Agent firearms training.
I reprint it here to add some reality to the discussion:
Re: Gun Thread
By: Devil505 On: Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:43 pm
Kinda long here but I think it's worth reading if you own a gun
I own a S&W 9MM handgun & a Remington 12 gauge, pump action shotgun. I learned to fire rifles when I was a kid with a 22 cal rifle, shooting at targets while laying prone on an old, dirty mattress<G>
I had never fired a handgun until...Wall of Text
The 2nd discusses both a Colective and an Individual Right to bear Arms... Some regulation/control is needed.
While the option to change "rights" as enshrined in our laws is always there (and, in fact, enshrined in said laws as well), I believe that the laws enshrined in the Constitution and its Amendments are enshrined in that way precisely to prevent casual changes. Only with a major agreement on the part of congress should any changes be made.
Only with a vast majority agreement on the part of the citizens of the country should any Amendments be removed/altered/added.
Even with the current crop of politicians we have in power I doubt a major change of that sort could be passed.
Don't know of anyone else who takes that interpretation.
The people who wrote that amendment had done that very thing just twenty years earlier. Clearly it wasn't too ridiculous to them.The idea that citizens should be able to fight our own military, (with it thousands of nukes, SLBM's & the like) is just a ridiculous argument, imo.
Straw man and appeal to emotion.The idea that anyone can buy a gun, anytime is a sad, sad prospect. For example, if someone hates you, and is a in a mental institute, he can get a gun, shoot and kill you, and he'll just go back to the crazy place. That concept, that anyone, including crazies and convicts can buy guns is a horrid concept. That is what you people want when you say no regulation. You'll only care about that when a convict shoots up a bus of people with an M-16, and one of your family members is dead.
Straw man and appeal to emotion.
Fail.
I don't think he was ever institutionalized for it, nor thought by any professional to be homicidal prior to his assassination attempt. I could be mistaken, though ...John Hinckley was nuts.
Do you force teachers to carry weapons?
Would an armed teacher just be a ready target for a suicidal student to take her gun away & kill classmates?
Always been my opinion that people who refuse to bear arms are unfit to. There's no good to be had from requiring teachers to pack heat, but there's certainly good to come of allowing them to.
Seriously. Seriously. Everyone keeps using this argument as a reason that people can't use their own guns in self defense, but I have never heard of a single case where an armed citizen has been disarmed by their own assailant. I've never heard of a case where someone who is not already armed has just walked up to someone else and relieved them of their weapon. The idea of it staggers the imagination.
That's the realm of Lifetime made for TV movies, not real
life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?