• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Billions of $ used in Foreign Aid to Pakistan would Support our LEO's in school

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
Money money everywhere but not a cent for OUR Children !
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed to LEOs in any but the most violent public schools. And, even then, I would only agree to have them outside in a parking lot or trailer, not allowed in the school unless there was violence that involved a weapon.

While everybody is thinking putting LEOs in schools is the way to solve mass murders, they overlook the abuses of school cops.

Just a couple I've run across: individual students strip searched on flimsy drug accusations; students lined up against the wall while drug dogs walked along and sniffed them for drugs; students unaware of their rights questioned at length without their parents present. For pete's sake, there is now case law in some jurisdictions about the relationship between cops, students, and rights. Summary: students ain't got much rights.

Cops aren't suddenly going to become angels just because they're working in a school. All the negatives that go with cops in society will be visited on our youth in schools.

Nevermind the additional cost of cops versus just letting CCW teachers and staff carry.

About the only bright point I can see is that maybe some kids will learn early what cops really are. But, since kids will be propagandized that Officer Bust is there to protect them, and kids will be fed all kinds of bogus justifications for police abuses, I am still opposed to cops in schools.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
If the NRA succeeds with its school cops campaign, we'll be able to blame them for the subsequent, entirely predictable abuses of students' rights by police.

"We'll give you the Eddie Eagle program, youngsters, and help flush your rights down the drain."
 

CharleyMarbles

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Clio, Michigan, USA
I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed to LEOs in any but the most violent public schools. And, even then, I would only agree to have them outside in a parking lot or trailer, not allowed in the school unless there was violence that involved a weapon.

While everybody is thinking putting LEOs in schools is the way to solve mass murders, they overlook the abuses of school cops.

Just a couple I've run across: individual students strip searched on flimsy drug accusations; students lined up against the wall while drug dogs walked along and sniffed them for drugs; students unaware of their rights questioned at length without their parents present. For pete's sake, there is now case law in some jurisdictions about the relationship between cops, students, and rights. Summary: students ain't got much rights.

Cops aren't suddenly going to become angels just because they're working in a school. All the negatives that go with cops in society will be visited on our youth in schools.

Nevermind the additional cost of cops versus just letting CCW teachers and staff carry.

About the only bright point I can see is that maybe some kids will learn early what cops really are. But, since kids will be propagandized that Officer Bust is there to protect them, and kids will be fed all kinds of bogus justifications for police abuses, I am still opposed to cops in schools.

This will only happen till the first Color of law lawsuit and they realize they are still under oath. Once again it is the PARENTS job to be ontop of what's going on in their children's lives. Let's see here we are ok with actual campus police FORCES on collage campus' where the "subject's" are supposed to be adult's but it's somehow abhorrent or socially unacceptable for us to protect the young we are charged with CARING FOR????? Am I the only one who find's this crazy????
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed to LEOs in any but the most violent public schools. And, even then, I would only agree to have them outside in a parking lot or trailer, not allowed in the school unless there was violence that involved a weapon.

While everybody is thinking putting LEOs in schools is the way to solve mass murders, they overlook the abuses of school cops.

Just a couple I've run across: individual students strip searched on flimsy drug accusations; students lined up against the wall while drug dogs walked along and sniffed them for drugs; students unaware of their rights questioned at length without their parents present. For pete's sake, there is now case law in some jurisdictions about the relationship between cops, students, and rights. Summary: students ain't got much rights.

Cops aren't suddenly going to become angels just because they're working in a school. All the negatives that go with cops in society will be visited on our youth in schools.

Nevermind the additional cost of cops versus just letting CCW teachers and staff carry.

About the only bright point I can see is that maybe some kids will learn early what cops really are. But, since kids will be propagandized that Officer Bust is there to protect them, and kids will be fed all kinds of bogus justifications for police abuses, I am still opposed to cops in schools.

Really, because my school district had an SRO program and none of that ever happened, must be like my gun that doesn't shoot people all its own, must be broken. Guess the SRO program isn't being managed right :rolleyes:
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed to LEOs in any but the most violent public schools. And, even then, I would only agree to have them outside in a parking lot or trailer, not allowed in the school unless there was violence that involved a weapon.

While everybody is thinking putting LEOs in schools is the way to solve mass murders, they overlook the abuses of school cops.

Just a couple I've run across: individual students strip searched on flimsy drug accusations; students lined up against the wall while drug dogs walked along and sniffed them for drugs; students unaware of their rights questioned at length without their parents present. For pete's sake, there is now case law in some jurisdictions about the relationship between cops, students, and rights. Summary: students ain't got much rights.

Cops aren't suddenly going to become angels just because they're working in a school. All the negatives that go with cops in society will be visited on our youth in schools.

Nevermind the additional cost of cops versus just letting CCW teachers and staff carry.

About the only bright point I can see is that maybe some kids will learn early what cops really are. But, since kids will be propagandized that Officer Bust is there to protect them, and kids will be fed all kinds of bogus justifications for police abuses, I am still opposed to cops in schools.

+1. Add on "truancy" officers, tickets for any vehicle violation, and not to mention, training the kids to become used to the constant presence of surveillance and badges giving a higher class of people more authority.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Really, because my school district had an SRO program and none of that ever happened, must be like my gun that doesn't shoot people all its own, must be broken. Guess the SRO program isn't being managed right :rolleyes:

Fallacy logic. You can't compare government intrusion to inanimate objects.

Just because it didn't happen in your school doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Just because it didn't happen in your school doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Probably also should check to see exactly what "it" he's talking about. Given some of his views, I'm betting he wouldn't even recognize some "it"s if they bit him.

On a side note, all I have to do is hear the Orwellian term school resource officer and I know something is up.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Probably also should check to see exactly what "it" he's talking about. Given some of his views, I'm betting he wouldn't even recognize some "it"s if they bit him.

On a side note, all I have to do is hear the Orwellian term school resource officer and I know something is up.

As in, my local school district the SRO is not allowed to search lockers or bags, and is only allowed to make arrests for violations of state law that he observes, and stuff like that. the cop is not supposed to be enforcing school policy. It's a great program. The Deputy assigned to my old Junior High School was a fun guy, he would let the kids flick his baton open and allow children to turn on the lights and stuff on the patrol car, he was also physically like me, a short guy with a high kind of breaking voice, so he didn't look all that threatening either, never yelled. soft spoken type. He also had his ACLU membership card taped to the back of his police ID (no ****, he really did)

I think officers like that are a great influence for children actually. I don't think he ever made an arrest while I was there except for once when a kid assaulted another bad enough that an ambulance had to be called.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Probably also should check to see exactly what "it" he's talking about. Given some of his views, I'm betting he wouldn't even recognize some "it"s if they bit him.

On a side note, all I have to do is hear the Orwellian term school resource officer and I know something is up.

True that.



As in, my local school district the SRO is not allowed to search lockers or bags, and is only allowed to make arrests for violations of state law that he observes, and stuff like that. the cop is not supposed to be enforcing school policy. It's a great program. The Deputy assigned to my old Junior High School was a fun guy, he would let the kids flick his baton open and allow children to turn on the lights and stuff on the patrol car, he was also physically like me, a short guy with a high kind of breaking voice, so he didn't look all that threatening either, never yelled. soft spoken type. He also had his ACLU membership card taped to the back of his police ID (no ****, he really did)

I think officers like that are a great influence for children actually. I don't think he ever made an arrest while I was there except for once when a kid assaulted another bad enough that an ambulance had to be called.

I don't. I don't feel my kids should have to like or get used to having agents of the state a daily part of their lives.

The rest of your post just shows how useless it was to steal money from others to have an armed cop play with kids.

(snip)

Try this on for size, a “well regulated militia.”

Think about it !

Peace & RKBA 4ever ! :cool:

If we use the original definitions of those words. The citizenry able of bearing weapons as the militia, and to make regular as "regulated". In other words government should stay out of the way of citizens regularly bearing arms.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP The citizenry able of bearing weapons as the militia, and to make regular as "regulated". In other words government should stay out of the way of citizens regularly bearing arms.

I'm under the impression that well-regulated includes practiced and disciplined militia. Meaning, we're supposed to be drilling.

We all know the government ain't gonna go along with that. A bunch of citizens with guns is an armed rabble. A bunch of citizens with guns, practiced in warfare, squad tactics and coordination, etc., is gonna be a tough nut to crack. Nope, the government ain't never gonna go along with militia training.

The only positive aspect of fedgov aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we've got a lot of young veterans who are recently trained.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
How many states even have an actual Militia anyways ?

I've looked up the one for my state & am not really sure if it's even active or accesible for membership.

I believe that in the near future, more people will be finding out about just what exactly IS availabe to become active in.

Do Gun Clubs qualify as a type of Militia ?

I'm under the impression private armies are seriously illegal. I've heard this comment a number of times in the context of gun clubs and so forth. I think IDPA may even mention it as a reason they don't conduct training--don't want to open themselves to accusations of training a private army.

VA has a statutory militia--able-bodied males aged (16-54?). But, I've never been called to drill. I don't recall the statute establishing drill frequency or anything of that sort.

You know, it might send a strong signal to the fedgov if gun owners started pestering their state legislatures to establish militia training. I'd go.

Also, it would send Feinstein a nice message. Propose banning guns and all of a sudden state militias start forming and training. Heh, heh, heh.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I'm under the impression that well-regulated includes practiced and disciplined militia. Meaning, we're supposed to be drilling.

Can't remember which book I read it from , I'll have to go search because I could be way off base. That regulate meant "make regular". Same as in regulate commerce. Make it easy to do not impede it.

Reading Conceived in Liberty the local militias trained in some colonies and didn't in others, it seems though that the local arm bearing folks would rise quickly in some cases to defend their liberties from infringement.

Also was recently brought to attention that Washington sucked as a commander and at fighting the Brits in their method of war fare. It was individuals and local militias who didn't play by European rules of warfare that prevailed more against the Brits.

We all know the government ain't gonna go along with that. A bunch of citizens with guns is an armed rabble. A bunch of citizens with guns, practiced in warfare, squad tactics and coordination, etc., is gonna be a tough nut to crack. Nope, the government ain't never gonna go along with militia training.

Absolutely correct, they wouldn't want to recognize that for a free state to exist........:cry:

The only positive aspect of fedgov aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we've got a lot of young veterans who are recently trained
.

True, and from many of the Vets I have met especially the younger ones who are informing themselves like the many veterans for Ron Paul, they won't easily roll over against their fellow citizens.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Can't remember which book I read it from , I'll have to go search because I could be way off base. That regulate meant "make regular". Same as in regulate commerce. Make it easy to do not impede it.

Reading Conceived in Liberty the local militias trained in some colonies and didn't in others, it seems though that the local arm bearing folks would rise quickly in some cases to defend their liberties from infringement.

Also was recently brought to attention that Washington sucked as a commander and at fighting the Brits in their method of war fare. It was individuals and local militias who didn't play by European rules of warfare that prevailed more against the Brits.

Absolutely correct, they wouldn't want to recognize that for a free state to exist........:cry:

True, and from many of the Vets I have met especially the younger ones who are informing themselves like the many veterans for Ron Paul, they won't easily roll over against their fellow citizens.

The definition I have from that period is to put into proper working order or maintain in proper working order. As in regulating a clock so it keeps proper time, running neither too fast nor too slow.

I've been trying to think of my source on that, but durned if I can remember. I have a vague impression was in connection with some semi-scholarly work on the 2A, but can't be sure.

Heh! Lemme try googling it.

Well, what do you know? Keywords regulated old definition turned up this as the first return. Check this out. http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html I'm off to find my copy of Federalist 29 to see if scumbag Hamilton actually wrote what the author of the article says he did.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Couldn't easily find my copy of The Federalist Papers, so I looked it up on-line.

Here is Hamilton's comment from Federalist 29:

...To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia...

So, it looks like the writer I linked in the post above got it right.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I'm under the impression private armies are seriously illegal. I've heard this comment a number of times in the context of gun clubs and so forth. I think IDPA may even mention it as a reason they don't conduct training--don't want to open themselves to accusations of training a private army.

VA has a statutory militia--able-bodied males aged (16-54?). But, I've never been called to drill. I don't recall the statute establishing drill frequency or anything of that sort.

You know, it might send a strong signal to the fedgov if gun owners started pestering their state legislatures to establish militia training. I'd go.

Also, it would send Feinstein a nice message. Propose banning guns and all of a sudden state militias start forming and training. Heh, heh, heh.

Most states have "State Defense Forces" and the like. Washington has the WA state guard, a whopping 4000 people and I don't know what they actually do or if they've even been used for anything, they do seem to be "recruiting" all the time though. You get the pleasure of paying for your uniforms, web gear, loadbearing gear, helmets, and all that crap. and their website doesn't seem to say if I get a gun for "enlisting" in the state guard.

It'd be kind of hard to manage militia drills or ensure everyone has standard equipment. so my community reports for drill and everyone has .223 carbines and the only military grade rifle I have is a No. 1 Mk. 3 Enfield... maybe I'd be designated marksman...;)

Also, is militia drill mandatory in your plan? and will it end up like jury duty where everyone simply tries to find out how to weasel out of it? is the state going to arrest everyone who doesn't report on the village green for muster and charge them with going AWOL?
 
Top