Teachers with Guns

[scarlett1125]

imported post

I just wanted to say that this is a great idea. The fact that the teachers who arecarrying are also getting training in crisis management and the well-publicized nature of the policy makes the school much safer.

~A Teacher~

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote: Once again the cops can't stand the thought of anyone but them having guns.

Even when all the facts prove them wrong.

Mmm... Interesting point. There is no other part of the Federal or State Constitutions that include the phrases "Shall not be infringed" and "Shall not be impaired." And yet the government falls all over itself doing just that.

I wonder how well "reasonable restrictions" would fly for say bookstores, or churches. Maybe a 5 day waiting period to buy books with anti government content to allow the purchaser to "cool off" or special training before one can pray in public.

Guns are dangerous tools, but so are a lot of other things out there and there is nowhere the level of restriction on them as guns.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

As long as the teachers receive some good training to go with their guns. Otherwise youmay have an armed adult potentially attempting to shoot at a bg amongst a room or hall filled with screaming, panicking kids, running every direction. Very similar to taking a shot in a mall full of people. They best know what the hell they are doing, or it could end in disaster via "friendly fire" and as we all know friendly fire, isn't.

When faced with unfriendly fire, even unskilled friendly fire will still tend to save more lives than no friendly fire at all. Even *if* there is "collateral damage" by the good guy, the fact remains, they are not TRYING to hit anyone but the bad guy. Since the path of a bullet is intelligently directed, not random, even in the most inexperienced hands, good guys with guns WILL have a net positive effect over bad guys with guns, no matter what the other factors.

Nowhere is this more true than defending against mass murder, not just a one-on-one confrontation.

Our *unalienable* civil rights are NOT predicated on training. Our country was founded with the principle that the benefits of liberty outweigh the inconveniences. Never forget that!

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

As long as the teachers receive some good training to go with their guns. Otherwise youmay have an armed adult potentially attempting to shoot at a bg amongst a room or hall filled with screaming, panicking kids, running every direction. Very similar to taking a shot in a mall full of people. They best know what the hell they are doing, or it could end in disaster via "friendly fire" and as we all know friendly fire, isn't.

Once again the cops can't stand the thought of anyone but them having guns.

Even when all the facts prove them wrong.

Bear..........read the first line of my post. The restare words of concern. Are you so longing for an argument that you must fabricate one where it doesn't exist?

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

As long as the teachers receive some good training to go with their guns. Otherwise youmay have an armed adult potentially attempting to shoot at a bg amongst a room or hall filled with screaming, panicking kids, running every direction. Very similar to taking a shot in a mall full of people. They best know what the hell they are doing, or it could end in disaster via "friendly fire" and as we all know friendly fire, isn't.

Once again the cops can't stand the thought of anyone but them having guns.

Even when all the facts prove them wrong.

Bear..........read the first line of my post. The restare words of concern. Are you so longing for an argument that you must fabricate one where it doesn't exist?

The part about they have to get training is not require anywhere in the Constitution. So why is it your requirement? Not your place to decide what is required, just enforce what the law says. I'm not the only one expressing that either.

 

[kparker]

imported post

Johnny Law,

Are you so longing for an argument that you must fabricate one where it doesn't exist?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

kparker wrote:

Johnny Law,

Are you so longing for an argument that you must fabricate one where it doesn't exist?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

The only one starting an argument is the law enforcement types who seem to think they get to set the rules rather than just enforce those set by the people actually in charge.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Once again the cops can't stand the thought of anyone but them having guns.

Even when all the facts prove them wrong.

It's a point well taken but in all fairness the viewpoint is not limited to cops. The prevaling public opinion is for protected classes and conditional civil rights. Unfortunately it's a pretty big tent.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

As long as the teachers receive some good training to go with their guns. Otherwise youmay have an armed adult potentially attempting to shoot at a bg amongst a room or hall filled with screaming, panicking kids, running every direction. Very similar to taking a shot in a mall full of people. They best know what the hell they are doing, or it could end in disaster via "friendly fire" and as we all know friendly fire, isn't.

Once again the cops can't stand the thought of anyone but them having guns.

Even when all the facts prove them wrong.

Bear..........read the first line of my post. The restare words of concern. Are you so longing for an argument that you must fabricate one where it doesn't exist?

The part about they have to get training is not require anywhere in the Constitution. So why is it your requirement? Not your place to decide what is required, just enforce what the law says. I'm not the only one expressing that either.

While it may not be in the consititution I think it would probably fall under the reasonable restrictions that SCOTUS has hinted is not a violation of the consititution. I don't think training for teachers that carry would be a bad thing. It gives them the training needed in not only using deadly force against a threat but it would also teach them threat management and crisis training. That could never be a bad thing when teachers are out numbered by the students that they have to try and control and keep safe.

Having said that I am still against laws that prohibit carry at schools.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

Speech is arguably as dangerous as guns. Let's require training before letting folks exercise freedom of expression. It's reasonable, no?

 

[joeroket]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

Speech is arguably as dangerous as guns. Let's require training before letting folks exercise freedom of expression. It's reasonable, no?

The teachers are actually trained in speech. Like I said I am not for any laws that restrict carrying a firearm, except for felons, but training never is a bad thing and SCOTUS has hinted that licensing and training are "reasonable" restrictions. Do I agree with them? Not at all but I agree to abide by the decisions that they make.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

t3rmin wrote:

Speech is arguably as dangerous as guns. Let's require training before letting folks exercise freedom of expression. It's reasonable, no?

The teachers are actually trained in speech. Like I said I am not for any laws that restrict carrying a firearm, except for felons, but training never is a bad thing and SCOTUS has hinted that licensing and training are "reasonable" restrictions. Do I agree with them? Not at all but I agree to abide by the decisions that they make.

That may be, but the state decides what training is required or the school board does if they want additional training for their people. Not the cops.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

Well for what it's worth I'm all for training! I'm just against the hinging of things which, by nature, cannot be hinged upon it. In this context, "reasonable restriction" is a contradiction.

It's either unalienable and shall-not-be-infringable or it isn't, ya know?

I see no reason to consider valid any ruling or law which violates the contract of liberty between the governed and the government which derives its power from them. (I'm not railing against you. )

 

[joeroket]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

Well for what it's worth I'm all for training! I'm just against the hinging of things which, by nature, cannot be hinged upon it. In this context, "reasonable restriction" is a contradiction.

It's either unalienable and shall-not-be-infringable or it isn't, ya know?

I see no reason to consider valid any ruling or law which violates the contract of liberty between the governed and the government which derives its power from them. (I'm not railing against you. )

I hear ya and agree with ya. We differ a little but our belief is very much the same. The only real difference in our views is in the courts rulings. I don't necessarily agree with them but I agree to abide by them. Afterall case law is much more enfiorceable, especially when it comes from SCOTUS, than any poorly written law on the books.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

t3rmin wrote:

Well for what it's worth I'm all for training! I'm just against the hinging of things which, by nature, cannot be hinged upon it. In this context, "reasonable restriction" is a contradiction.

It's either unalienable and shall-not-be-infringable or it isn't, ya know?

I see no reason to consider valid any ruling or law which violates the contract of liberty between the governed and the government which derives its power from them. (I'm not railing against you. )

I agree 100%, the reasonable restriction crap may work for the other parts of the Bill of Rights because they don't say "shall not be infringed". By any definition a restriction is an infringement.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

t3rmin wrote:

Speech is arguably as dangerous as guns. Let's require training before letting folks exercise freedom of expression. It's reasonable, no?

The teachers are actually trained in speech. Like I said I am not for any laws that restrict carrying a firearm, except for felons, but training never is a bad thing and SCOTUS has hinted that licensing and training are "reasonable" restrictions. Do I agree with them? Not at all but I agree to abide by the decisions that they make.

That may be, but the state decides what training is required or the school board does if they want additional training for their people. Not the cops.

But what would be the difference, speaking of training only here Bear, between the state or school board dictating the training for a teacher certification and dictating the training for carrying a pistol at the school? I don't see that difference would be much, except for the fact that it is still gun restriction.

If they would let teachers carry with the stipulation of training then I would be all for it without complaint. Afterall it is better than none carrying.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

t3rmin wrote:

Speech is arguably as dangerous as guns. Let's require training before letting folks exercise freedom of expression. It's reasonable, no?

The teachers are actually trained in speech. Like I said I am not for any laws that restrict carrying a firearm, except for felons, but training never is a bad thing and SCOTUS has hinted that licensing and training are "reasonable" restrictions. Do I agree with them? Not at all but I agree to abide by the decisions that they make.

That may be, but the state decides what training is required or the school board does if they want additional training for their people. Not the cops.

But what would be the difference, speaking of training only here Bear, between the state or school board dictating the training for a teacher certification and dictating the training for carrying a pistol at the school? I don't see that difference would be much, except for the fact that it is still gun restriction.

If they would let teachers carry with the stipulation of training then I would be all for it without complaint. Afterall it is better than none carrying.

No differenceand I'm not against training the teachers. I'm against the cops saying the teachersmust have training. The state and/or the school board get to decide on training, not the cops. Cops get to enforce the law, not make it. Which is a good thing because most cop inspired laws or interpretation of law infringe on citizens rights (hence this officer safety crap that ignores the Constitution). I think that an armed teacher without training is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free zone every time, no contest.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

t3rmin wrote:

Speech is arguably as dangerous as guns. Let's require training before letting folks exercise freedom of expression. It's reasonable, no?

The teachers are actually trained in speech. Like I said I am not for any laws that restrict carrying a firearm, except for felons, but training never is a bad thing and SCOTUS has hinted that licensing and training are "reasonable" restrictions. Do I agree with them? Not at all but I agree to abide by the decisions that they make.

That may be, but the state decides what training is required or the school board does if they want additional training for their people. Not the cops.

But what would be the difference, speaking of training only here Bear, between the state or school board dictating the training for a teacher certification and dictating the training for carrying a pistol at the school? I don't see that difference would be much, except for the fact that it is still gun restriction.

If they would let teachers carry with the stipulation of training then I would be all for it without complaint. Afterall it is better than none carrying.

No differenceand I'm not against training the teachers. I'm against the cops saying the teachersmust have training. The state and/or the school board get to decide on training, not the cops. Cops get to enforce the law, not make it. Which is a good thing because most cop inspired laws or interpretation of law infringe on citizens rights (hence this officer safety crap that ignores the Constitution). I think that an armed teacher without training is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free zone every time, no contest.

Gotcha. I must have misunderstood your last post.

I agree with you 99.9% ( I don't want to be the only guy that agres with you 100% ) :lol:

 

[kparker]

imported post

I'm not against training the teachers. I'm against the cops saying the teachers must have training.

Well, let's be careful here. If the head official of the Texas State Police sends out a press release about this issue, and says the teachers need to be trained, then that's one thing. (If this were the case, then I wouldn't be shy about agreeing with Bear 100% on this one.)

BUT that's not the situation here. Instead, we have one individual, who is a member of this board, who might be* a police officer in his day job, commenting in his individual private capacity that he hopes the teachers who do carry are well trained. I don't think there's anywhere in the US where taking a job in law enforcement means you give up your free speech rights when off the job.


[line]* "might be": in case you haven't noticed, it's on the internet, so J.L. could just as easily be a dog and we'd never know.

 

[Bear 45/70]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Bear 45/70 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

t3rmin wrote:

Speech is arguably as dangerous as guns. Let's require training before letting folks exercise freedom of expression. It's reasonable, no?

The teachers are actually trained in speech. Like I said I am not for any laws that restrict carrying a firearm, except for felons, but training never is a bad thing and SCOTUS has hinted that licensing and training are "reasonable" restrictions. Do I agree with them? Not at all but I agree to abide by the decisions that they make.

That may be, but the state decides what training is required or the school board does if they want additional training for their people. Not the cops.

But what would be the difference, speaking of training only here Bear, between the state or school board dictating the training for a teacher certification and dictating the training for carrying a pistol at the school? I don't see that difference would be much, except for the fact that it is still gun restriction.

If they would let teachers carry with the stipulation of training then I would be all for it without complaint. Afterall it is better than none carrying.

No differenceand I'm not against training the teachers. I'm against the cops saying the teachersmust have training. The state and/or the school board get to decide on training, not the cops. Cops get to enforce the law, not make it. Which is a good thing because most cop inspired laws or interpretation of law infringe on citizens rights (hence this officer safety crap that ignores the Constitution). I think that an armed teacher without training is a bigger deterrent than an unarmed teacher in a gun free zone every time, no contest.

Gotcha. I must have misunderstood your last post.

I agree with you 99.9% ( I don't want to be the only guy that agres with you 100% ) :lol:

Yeah, that might destroy any credibility you might have around here.