Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just incase all of you forgot... at least one if not more Sheriff's deputies did not enter the building while shooting was occurring in Broward FL.
Those were paid men to do the job that you are now asking US Veterans to perform?
Why are we discussing voluntary protection when men who are paid to do so will not protect children?
Seems rather passive aggressive behavior to me.
Do you think that the Broward County deputies used a similar procedural excuse to not go inside the school that day? LOL
So now I can focus on what you are saying.
And I think I'm agreeing with you.
Human behavior often affects professionalism. I've certainly seen it among principal colleagues and teachers...where a normally very professional person will act seemingly out-of-character when the unpredictable aspects of human-ness came more forcefully into the picture. I remember growing up next to a kid that was a little jerk who would practically **** his pants if someone pushed him around just a little. Guess what he became...a cop...and in our small town he walked around like a big shot while that gun was strapped to his waist. Being a small town I don't think he every came up against much that would test him, but my guess was that if he had he would either empty that gun without really thinking or stand there and cry. Sort of a Barney Fife on steroids.
And I've seen that with teachers, too. In the faculty lounge they talk big. In a conference with a parent they spend most of the time capitulating.
I look back to when our school system began having real police officers as school resource officers. It took some real training for those policemen to learn how to work with adolescents. The first one we had...minga...what a total failure. Our second one walked on water.
One day, before we had resource officers, a cop came to our school to interview a kid (13 years old) who was probably going to be arrested for shoplifting at the local mall. The cop didn't know how to deal with adolescents. Our school system had an agreement with the police department that if a cop wanted to talk to a student at school, either the parent or a school official had to be present. As principal, I was the one present. Before the student came in I started to give the officer a personality sketch of the kid, and he basically told me he didn't need my help. The interview started and the kid sat there with no understanding of what the cop was asking. I said, "Johnny, what he is asking you is", and was told by the cop to shut up. So I did. After a few minutes the kid was becoming hysterical. The cop looked at me and said, "What's going on here?" I said, "Step over here." And I explained to him that the kid was in our special ed program for being emotionally disturbed." "Oh. Well, I guess I'll need you to help me, then." And my response: "No. Twice you've told me to shut up. And that's what I'm going to do. And when this is all over, I'm going to report you and outline your inappropriate behavior and your refusal to cooperate in the spirit of the local regulations about working with school officials when interacting with students on school property."
We need to be ultra careful about who is among our students in the school setting.
I am not saying police are the solution. You just posted some links where police failed to act appropriately. I am not saying that police will always act appropriately, I am saying that teachers will have the same rate of inappropriate behavior and arming them in a classroom will just increase the chance of that inappropriate behavior to be worse.
Why is it you lie? I do not always side with the government having guns. Please provide me links where I stated that or apologize.
Wait? What? Why are you for arming the government here?
But to address your question, something you seem to not do, I do not think that teachers cannot handle the threat but I think that bringing more guns into schools will increase school shootings by increasing the odds that a gun gets into the hands of a person who will shoot either from accidents or from the wrong person having a gun at the wrong time. It does not matter. Guns introduced to the classroom would lead to an increase in guns causing harm either through accidents or malice.
You are consistent that only cops have guns in schools. No apology.
Teachers are not tasked with forcing people to do things or arrest them. Cops are the governments armed enforcement. I shouldn’t have to provide this distinction.
As to your legitimate concern, I’ve stated numerous times that I don’t see an urgency to change anything. If there must be an outcry for a solution, I would suggest posting a cop car outside schools. If guns are to be inside the school, I would prefer armed teachers, then possibly armed security. I am not for police state type controls like cops in the school, metal detectors or some form of electronic passes.
You are consistent that only cops have guns in schools. No apology.
OK, Let's first address the elephant in the room. You want to arm teachers. Your statement was: "Why is it you always side with the government having the guns?" Yet you do not even understand teachers or a militia assigned by the governor are "The Government". Second, I am not in favor of anyone having guns in schools but if I have to I would rather have police who are accountable do it than someone that is so scared and mentally unstable that they feel they have to carry a pacifier.....errr...gun around to participate in normal life. Scared people do not always make the best decisions, scared people without accountability...well I do not like that idea. This would just be adding more adult mall cops around to try flirt with high school girls because they cannot get a woman their own age or bullies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55
Teachers are not tasked with forcing people to do things or arrest them. Cops are the governments armed enforcement. I shouldn’t have to provide this distinction.
Irrelevant. You said the Government. You never stated that until after you were shown to be wrong. This is why I do not trust a lot of people with guns.....failure to think ahead and mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55
As to your legitimate concern, I’ve stated numerous times that I don’t see an urgency to change anything. If there must be an outcry for a solution, I would suggest posting a cop car outside schools. If guns are to be inside the school, I would prefer armed teachers, then possibly armed security. I am not for police state type controls like cops in the school, metal detectors or some form of electronic passes.
What is wrong with metal detectors or electronic passes?
2.) LMFAO at pathetic militias against the US Military. You can have your pacifiers but look at all who stand against small parts of the US military today and eventually lose. This is with people not even having a real will to fight them or feeling personally invested.
Same kind of things were said of the american colonies against the british empire...they dont stand a chance, no possible way they can win, etc.
Again with Vietnam, no way they could beat the US military.
And again in Afghanistan, rural tribes do not stand a chance against the mighty US...
Op, good idea, but the minute you say milita, you'll be infiltrated by the feds.
.
Gee, I wonder why? LOL
Of course a tyrannical govt is going to do anything and everything it can to protect itself. Its not like a tyrannical govt is going to just give up and surrender to the militia, "well you have caught us, we give up, here are the keys to the kingdom, good luck, we will stand down now".
Its no coincidence that when the word 'militia' is used, many people automatically think of anti-govt wackos, this is a deception game, discredit the threat to your control and make them seem crazy and bizarre.
Besides that a govt is or has become tyrannical would never come out and admit itself to be tyrannical, "Ok guys, we are tyrannical now, time for the public to step up and remove us from power".
I haven't read this whole thread but I like to take every opportunity when a militia is mentioned to emphasize something. We focus a lot on "the right of the people" in the 2nd amendment, and rightly so, no argument. However, the second amendment says something else that is, IMO, completely neglected and just as important. It tells us "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." my emphasis added.
We have to go to Switzerland to see that part of our constitution being practiced. The constitution says a well regulated militia is necessary. We have been ignoring that because we're too busy defending the basic right. If we had a well regulated militia, that would turn the perception of guns into what they actually are, a useful tool in dire emergencies. Right now guns are viewed by many as simply frivolous, unnecessary and dangerous toys for retarded rednecks. We need a "well regulated militia" and we don't have it. It would have a huge impact on the perception of guns. And we know people do not act on facts, they act on their perceptions of the facts.
Same kind of things were said of the american colonies against the british empire...they dont stand a chance, no possible way they can win, etc.
The British gave up, they did not lose. You will notice that Great Britain is still a country. They could have won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Again with Vietnam, no way they could beat the US military.
Vietnam we did not lose, we left and that was because of we chose to because of the political situation at home. The Tet Offensive widely reported as a US loss by our own press is now considered a loss by the North Vietnamese by historians and many military experts.
More importantly Vietnam was a battle in the cold war which the US and its allies won. It served its purpose. [quote=rstevens62;51200596]
And again in Afghanistan, rural tribes do not stand a chance against the mighty US...
Last I checked we forced regime change and go where we want with impunity....and that is with what? 15,000 troops on the ground?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Seems like a trend to me.
Yeah, it seems like that. Go attack a US base with your bros and see how you win.
I haven't read this whole thread but I like to take every opportunity when a militia is mentioned to emphasize something. We focus a lot on "the right of the people" in the 2nd amendment, and rightly so, no argument. However, the second amendment says something else that is, IMO, completely neglected and just as important. It tells us "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." my emphasis added.
We have to go to Switzerland to see that part of our constitution being practiced. The constitution says a well regulated militia is necessary. We have been ignoring that because we're too busy defending the basic right. If we had a well regulated militia, that would turn the perception of guns into what they actually are, a useful tool in dire emergencies. Right now guns are viewed by many as simply frivolous, unnecessary and dangerous toys for retarded rednecks. We need a "well regulated militia" and we don't have it. It would have a huge impact on the perception of guns. And we know people do not act on facts, they act on their perceptions of the facts.
The 'well regulated' aspect to it has been discussed in similar threads, the consensus is that today, the people in general, are the militia, and well regulated means showing up with the type of weapons commonly used at the time (modern weapons). It only works if both Govt and militia/people have the same weapons, or one side becomes too powerful and that can be abused.
The best defense against tyranny is an armed public, so it is necessary for govt to feel threatened by the people for it to be effective.
If Govt did not feel threatened by the armed public, they could become as tyrannical as they want, without ever fearing some kind of revolution. (thats the situation we are in today), the people fear govt more than govt fears the people.
The 'well regulated' aspect to it has been discussed in similar threads, the consensus is that today, the people in general, are the militia, and well regulated means showing up with the type of weapons commonly used at the time (modern weapons). It only works if both Govt and militia/people have the same weapons, or one side becomes too powerful and that can be abused.
The best defense against tyranny is an armed public, so it is necessary for govt to feel threatened by the people for it to be effective.
If Govt did not feel threatened by the armed public, they could become as tyrannical as they want, without ever fearing some kind of revolution. (thats the situation we are in today), the people fear govt more than govt fears the people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
