• 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.

Some Schools will have armed officials in Yakima County

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
When one 'private individual' can make a decision that affects another private individual or that other individual's children, then that is government.

I can fire someone who works for me that affects them and may affect their children. I can be fired from a job or have my guys quit which would affect me and my children, neither one of us would be government.

The essence Governement or the state is the involuntary violence.


And its not hypocritical to make judgement upon constitutionally restricted state agents and what they should or should not carry. Comparing that to private citizens.....is silly.
 
Last edited:

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
I'm confused. So all of you guys are against teachers carrying guns to protect kids?

..... It sounds like they are going to train and arm their employees. Key word train.........

This morning I heard from a Mom and her daughter. The daughter is concerned about the recent assaults at schools and is worried because there is no one there to protect her. Her Mom suggested that "Sergeant john" could come to her school and help keep her safe.

I would volunteer for this kind of Community service. I do not believe the city council of bellingham would EVER approve protecting children in this manner. I believe the Community should step up and take care of their own and put LEOs back on the streets where they belong.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
This morning I heard from a Mom and her daughter. The daughter is concerned about the recent assaults at schools and is worried because there is no one there to protect her. Her Mom suggested that "Sergeant john" could come to her school and help keep her safe.

I would volunteer for this kind of Community service. I do not believe the city council of bellingham would EVER approve protecting children in this manner. I believe the Community should step up and take care of their own and put LEOs back on the streets where they belong.
That right there is a mom who places here ideology above her kid's safety.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
This morning I heard from a Mom and her daughter. The daughter is concerned about the recent assaults at schools and is worried because there is no one there to protect her. Her Mom suggested that "Sergeant john" could come to her school and help keep her safe.

I would volunteer for this kind of Community service. I do not believe the city council of bellingham would EVER approve protecting children in this manner. I believe the Community should step up and take care of their own and put LEOs back on the streets where they belong.

Agreed. I'm not saying for a second it has to be or should be only leos who have to be in the school.

It could be teachers, admin, parents, etc. My only concern is they are trained and held to some standard. Yearly qualification, use of force, first responder/first aid training.

If you wanted to volunteer sounds good. Just pass the shooting qualification, take a first responder class, and some other basic training, background check etc. Then sounds good sign up and I'd back you.






Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Agreed. I'm not saying for a second it has to be or should be only leos who have to be in the school.

It could be teachers, admin, parents, etc. My only concern is they are trained and held to some standard. Yearly qualification, use of force, first responder/first aid training.

If you wanted to volunteer sounds good. Just pass the shooting qualification, take a first responder class, and some other basic training, background check etc. Then sounds good sign up and I'd back you.






Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

So to exercise a RIGHT we must pass a test? IF a test is required to exercise, IT AIN'T A RIGHT!
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Agreed. I'm not saying for a second it has to be or should be only leos who have to be in the school.

It could be teachers, admin, parents, etc. My only concern is they are trained and held to some standard. Yearly qualification, use of force, first responder/first aid training.

If you wanted to volunteer sounds good. Just pass the shooting qualification, take a first responder class, and some other basic training, background check etc. Then sounds good sign up and I'd back you.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

If training and a test were required to exercise free speech, you might end up pretty quiet.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
So to exercise a RIGHT we must pass a test? IF a test is required to exercise, IT AIN'T A RIGHT!

We were talking about people EMPLOYED by or even VOLUNTEERING for the school with the explicit purpose of security of the children/staff. (At least I know I was. I believe he was also since he stated he would volunteer for said duty).

You have no "right" to do that. and the duty/job would be much more complicated then "i got my gun ob my hip as a deterrent." So a test/training is perfectly sound.

Now.....

If you were talking in general like you should be able to carry on school grounds when getting kids, then sure. I agree with you.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
We were talking about people EMPLOYED by or even VOLUNTEERING for the school with the explicit purpose of security of the children/staff. (At least I know I was. I believe he was also since he stated he would volunteer for said duty).

You have no "right" to do that. and the duty/job would be much more complicated then "i got my gun ob my hip as a deterrent." So a test/training is perfectly sound.

Now.....

If you were talking in general like you should be able to carry on school grounds when getting kids, then sure. I agree with you.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

As I said in post #11 of THIS thread:
JoeSparky said:
Not me, I'm against the "state" allowing only a specific class of persons to exercise self defense or defense of children. Teachers, parents, custodians, school bus drivers, or any other person ought to have the unfetered right to defend themselves and others if and when needed no matter where they are legally present without having to wait for those in a uniform with a shiny badge to get there!
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
As I said in post #11 of THIS thread:
JoeSparky said:

I agree in that regard. If your a bus driver you should be able to carry to protect yourself while at work.

On the flip side, the employer can and does tell you to leave it home.

And again, if someone is going to have the responsibility to protect someone else in any capacity then they should be trained to do so.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I agree in that regard. If your a bus driver you should be able to carry to protect yourself while at work.

On the flip side, the employer can and does tell you to leave it home.

And again, if someone is going to have the responsibility to protect someone else in any capacity then they should be trained to do so.

I feel responsible for my family, friends and neighbors. As a surfer I saved lots of people from drowning, should I have taken a class first?
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
I feel responsible for my family, friends and neighbors. As a surfer I saved lots of people from drowning, should I have taken a class first?

Were you a life guard? Bet if you were they would've required training or a test....

What you FEEL responsible for and what you ARE responsible for are two different things.

If you are employed either voluntarily or monetarily by a school to protect kids then you ARE responsible. It would be your job with repercussions if you failed to act. More importantly your purpose would be to assist and others would he relying on you to actually know what your doing.

Really can't figure out how there is any argument against this. There is no constitutional or any other right to be present/work for the school and protect the kids. And there is NO downside from training.

"No I won't do first responder training because you can't make me......"

"No I won't take a firearms class and a qualification because you can't make me....."

Instead of "yes id like to train as a first responder, I'd like to know how to use quick clot sign me up" or "sure I'll take the class and qualification for shooting I enjoy shooting and training is always good".

Again... As already clarified this does NOT apply to just anyone who goes to get kids. I'm referring to people actually employed by school for security or in general.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Were you a life guard? Bet if you were they would've required training or a test....

What you FEEL responsible for and what you ARE responsible for are two different things.

If you are employed either voluntarily or monetarily by a school to protect kids then you ARE responsible. It would be your job with repercussions if you failed to act. More importantly your purpose would be to assist and others would he relying on you to actually know what your doing.

Really can't figure out how there is any argument against this. There is no constitutional or any other right to be present/work for the school and protect the kids. And there is NO downside from training.

"No I won't do first responder training because you can't make me......"

"No I won't take a firearms class and a qualification because you can't make me....."

Instead of "yes id like to train as a first responder, I'd like to know how to use quick clot sign me up" or "sure I'll take the class and qualification for shooting I enjoy shooting and training is always good".

Again... As already clarified this does NOT apply to just anyone who goes to get kids. I'm referring to people actually employed by school for security or in general.

Conflating volunteering with employed, is first fallacy.

There is no constitutional right to have schools, yet you want to argue about citizens voluntarily being armed as needing to have training and a license?

Of course you don't get it, you are an fanatic of the church of state.

How about just being a free person who volunteers to help children without any F'ing requirements?

I hate the term first responder, it has been developed by the state for state reasons.......history repeating itself......
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
The REAL and TRUE first responder is that person FIRST on the scene when care, assistance, aid, or DEFENSE is needed. Typically, LEO's are nothing more than ARMED Stenographers making chalk outlines and taking witness statements. There are exceptions to my preceding sentence, that is why I said "typically"!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
It's better than some jingoistic term like 'warfighter.'

If we called a shite a rose it would still just be shite. ;)

The REAL and TRUE first responder is that person FIRST on the scene when care, assistance, aid, or DEFENSE is needed. Typically, LEO's are nothing more than ARMED Stenographers making chalk outlines and taking witness statements. There are exceptions to my preceding sentence, that is why I said "typically"!

I agree but the statist want a group of certified people to feel special and that they are privileged and licensed by the state to be "first responders". A few years ago I looked up the propaganda behind that term to reminiscent of Mother Russia or Fatherland.....no coincidence it was pushed heavily with Homeland Security. It just leaves me with an icky feeling of disgust.
 
Top