Arm the teachers, am I slow or is that idea completely insane

[Kulindahr]

Remember the violent arrest of a student caught on video in a South Carolina classroom back in 2015?

It was from a NRA source that I read the suggestion that school SROs not be deputized to arrest students, as that is counterproductive to enhancing student safety since if the students don't trust the SROs they're not likely to follow their instructions in an emergency.

That's also been extended as a reason to arm teachers instead, since law enforcement tends to have an adversarial relationship to teens, which by its nature disrupts the educational environment.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've run out of ways to say "We just want it to be difficult if not impossible for people such as the Florida shooter (history of romanticizing murder on social media, multiple run-ins with police, reported to FBI, recommended to be committed for mental issues, suspended from school 3 days before purchasing an ar15) and the Texas church shooter (unreported domestic violence arrest that would've made him ineligible to purchase his weapon) to obtain a weapon. When people who openly boast about their intention to take human lives are able to purchase high-powered weapons you can't call that gun "control." For the 349873985743rd time, I have no problem with competent, mentally balanaced people owning firearms, and that's even considering the their fantasy of armed heroics doesn't really fall in line with the statistics of how guns are used and who they're used on.

Guns are used in crime somewhere more than about 38k times per year (counts only incidents where someone was at least wounded) to 120k per year (counts brandishing), while according to the CDC guns are used defensively more than that, perhaps substantially more (as high as two million); the CDC notes that self-defense with a weapon is a serious deterrent to crime.

And the NRA and the rest want the very things you say "We" want -- they just don't want them to be without due process (as the Obama administration tried and Chuck Schumer championed) or by using authority the federal government isn't given. The real problem with the NRA is they don't actually want anything settled; that would impair the flow of money, and endanger La Pierre's dollar-less-than-a-million salary and all his perks. Very few are actually interested in what the Constitution does have to say, which is tragic because there's a lot that could be done with the authority that's there in plain English.

I'm baffled as to why Democrats haven't proposed any of the simple steps that could have been taken after any number of high-profile mass killings that, had they been in place beforehand, would likely have prevented the incident, such as allowing institutions to report their conclusions that an individual is dangerous (which has come back to haunt us several times since that became an obvious thing to do), requiring safe and secure storage of all guns not in use (which can be done under the authority over the militia), or even establishing a national community-based mental health system that even Wayne La Pierre has called for. Each of those three would have at the least put a major kink in the efforts made by over half the mass killers, but instead we hear inane proposals for better background checks -- though getting law enforcement agencies to actually do their jobs under the law has been a culprit two or more times now! -- or banning certain kinds of rifles.

 

[Kulindahr]

Because the majority of Americans aren’t arguing for people to be unarmed, but apparently to people like Kuli that any suggestion of any sort of regulation or idea against guns = taking them away from everyone.

No, it's that repeatedly people here and in politics demand that people's rights be trampled on without any due process. The whole claim that Trump made it easy for the mentally ill to get guns is typical of the misleading, mendacious claims; all he did was what the ACLU recommended: doing away with a system that abrogated the requirement for due process as well as that of equal treatment under the law.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's a silly dodge just meant to derail discussion. The first one is the insistence on perfection, "...regulation won't catch everyone so it's just a failure and we should buy more guns..." No, regulation won't catch everyone but it sure as hell will catch a bunch of it's effective.

I only hear that (lying) claim from liberals.

The second dodge is that one, "Slippery Slope," Things like registries and databases eases the way the 'gubmint can find MY GUN when Nancy Pelosi come for it!!!

Every government that set out to disarm its citizens has started with registries and databases -- without exception. That's enough right there to know that the proposal to have registries and databases is a monstrous step toward tyranny.

And since Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem to be able to talk about guns without lying, she plainly isn't to be trusted, either because she knows she's lying and considers that acceptable or she doesn't know and therefore isn't competent to address the subject.

Then there's the insistence that there is a 2cnd Amendment prohibition on regulation in a country that already fucking Constitutionally regulates firearms.

If you go and look at the ammosexualist arguments, they are all pretty much variations on those three.

There are no constitutional regulations on firearms -- there can't be, because Congress is not assigned such authority. What it is assigned is authority to "arm, organize, and discipline the militia" -- and the fact that no congresscritters have proposed anything based on that indicates that they don't care about the Constitution except to invoke it when they think it will get them votes.

BTW use of the term "ammosexual" establishes that you're not interested in adult discussion; it's both fallacious and immature.

 

[TX-Beau]

Please, I tired of having these same old arguments with you years ago.

The law in this country says it's PERFECTLY FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL to regulate firearms, suck on that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your point about regulation is the same thing they say about laws. Laws don’t stop crime but they’re hell of a deterrent when people do commit them and actually get punished for them.

Therein lies the major problem: the typical crime committed with the aid of a gun, if all applicable laws were brought to bear, would result in a sentence of 120 years, 90 with good time. But dropping gun charges is one of the most common deals made in plea bargains, especially in urban areas.

The NRA has called so often for enforcement of these laws, and that there be no possible reductions in the sentences, and that laws be added so that merely showing a gun when committing a crime should have a minimum sentence that can't be reduced, that it is almost monotonous. They point out regularly that the typical criminal who harms someone using a gun has been in prison three or more times, and is frequently on parole or out on bail for violent charges at the time they shoot someone! That is an utterly ridiculous situation, made more remarkable when it's considered that mere possession of marijuana with "intent to distribute" carries a minimum sentence longer than that for many murder charges. We would do better to pardon all non-violent drug offenders and forbid the dropping of gun charges in plea bargains.

Given that according to the law we in the U.S. are pretty much all the militia, that only makes sense, because as members of the militia we have a duty to utilize guns to increase and enhance the security of our country and neighborhoods, so misuse of a gun to harm someone is a betrayal of the very reason for which the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment (indeed on at least one gun site it's been proposed that any mass killer be tried for treason as a militia member who has effectively deserted and joined the enemy).

I'll believe that congresscritters are really interested in reducing violence perpetrated with guns when they do three things:

• ban the dropping of gun charges in plea deals
• require all sentences due to use of guns in crimes to be served in full, not subject to any reduction
• hold judges responsible for the use of guns to do harm by people with violent records whom they allowed out on bail or parole

It is not unreasonable to ask, as is commonly asked on gun sites, why we should entrust more authority to government when by the record the government is not competent to enforce the laws they are already charged with upholding.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Indeed. Our gun laws don't prevent crime, especially with illegal guns finding their way across the border, but shooting events are rare, and mass shootings are virtually unknown. There is only one of any note and that happened in Montreal in December 1989 when 14 nursing students were killed (14 others were injured) before the shooter killed himself. Memorials are still held on the anniversary.

I doubt your press provides fame to such criminals in the first place, as the media in the U.S. do, so you don't get people deciding they should copy what others have done.

 

[Kulindahr]

Please, I tired of having these same old arguments with you years ago.

The law in this country says it's PERFECTLY FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL to regulate firearms, suck on that.

The Constitution does not say it's constitutional. According to the Constitution, the government only has that authority which the Constitutional plainly gives it. There is no authority given to regulate arms in any way, therefore the government does not have any.

That the legislatures despise the Constitution and the courts are too cowardly to mandate it be followed does not change its meaning.

 

[opinterph]

There is also the boogeyman aspect, foreign invaders, home invaders, racial division that NRA, and gun enthusiasts like to use to prey on people’s fears to buy a gun.

It’s funny because I grew up in the city and have been outside of my front step and a friends front step on two different occasions where drive bys happened, homes has been robbed multiple times over the years, a couple of those I was home while it happened, harassed by aggressive neighbors and yet I’ve never felt that these situations would be better off with a gun.

People seem to run to the gun solution when even with a gun any of those situations could’ve have been made worse with it.

The NRA preys on fears?

They don't have to -- liberal politicians keep telling everyone we're in a crime and violence "epidemic", despite the fact that this is patently false according to all national figures.

The NRA preys on fears?

They don't have to -- liberal politicians keep telling everyone we're in a crime and violence "epidemic", despite the fact that this is patently false according to all national figures.

I've asked you to support that statement with links to those 'facts' and all you've done is to insult me. It is not up to us to prove your arguments. Just like Trump, you spout stuff as 'fact' and expect us just to believe you because you're spouting them.

Sure, I could just Google it, but That's Not My Job.

EDIT: By the way, maybe the democrats that are saying you are in an 'epidemic', but it is the NRA and the Trump administration who are jumping all over it and using it as a means to get what the hell they want, and that is: MORE GUNS.

-- liberal politicians keep telling everyone we're in a crime and violence "epidemic", despite the fact that this is patently false according to all national figures.

How do you define “epidemic?”

Please provide a source link (or perhaps a more thorough explanation) to substantiate your statement, “liberal politicians keep telling everyone we're in a crime and violence ‘epidemic’.”

​

 

[ballcaphair]

A footnote:

https://storycorps.org/listen/tanai-benard-and-dezmond-floyd-180323/

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I wanted to bring this to this thread because it was interesting and something I found because of my older brother who claimed the NRA armed Black People to defend themselves against the KKK... I know, his source was someone saying it on Fox news. I actually found the opposite, the NRA actually was for Gun Regulation because they were afraid of the Black Panthers *cough Black People *cough.

Either way, I found this to be an interesting read and wanted to share.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act

 

[Kulindahr]

^
The Black Panthers were right.

And once again, gun control arises from racism.

 

[rareboy]