Allow guns in school?


Might want to consider arming some of the students as well....

Still under investigation, but it's sad state of affairs, that a 14 year-old has to take up arms, to defend his family.

...investigation ongoing.... Granted, the story is 6 monoths old, but still quite relevant to current events.

Link Removed
 

There are some states that do not requier any training or class instruction whatsoever, go to the Sherrif, pass a backround ck, pay your money and get your CCW permit...................that is BS in anyones book, being your so good with your computer looking up laws rules and regulations, you really should have known this, in my state we had to take 8hrs of classroom and firearms training to get our CCW certificate, and my wife and I have also take additional courses in home pertection and defence, I was not advocating that some need training and some don't, I have always said that any private citizen, non military, non police, who carrys a gun no matter who they are, needs to be trained, and this would go double for teachers, just because its your 2nd amendment right don't meen some should do it. I geuss in your veiw it was that kid in Newtown's 2nd ad right to carry guns, just because he was a american, and now we are seeing what that got us...........if someone dissagrees with this thats your choice.............

Damn, Rocketgeezer! I defended you in one posts here but now you have exposed your true feelings (sort on like for gungrabbers we just want "common sense" gun laws. We don't want all your guns.) You want everyone forcibly trained instead of letting people use their own good judgement and get training on their own from a pro or more experienced friend.
I direct you to post #58 the second part. That would be BluesStringer's post. "I think it's much more stupid to give government more authority than the Constitution's authors and signers contemplated by writing that phrase, "...shall NOT be infringed" into the 2nd Amendment. Requirements that prevents one from exercising a right until they abide by them, whether they can afford those requirements or not, seems a rather obvious infringement to me." Again I ask...do you and some others here really not understand the 2A and the Constitution? Been brainashed by years of politicians just ignoring it?
 
I'm curious to know if the people who are against armed teachers/guards in schools are also against having an armed marshal on an aircraft.
 
I taught high school for 27 years and I knew of only one instance where a teacher carried a gun to school. A lady I taught with carried a .38 snub nose revolver in her purse at all times. Her uysband owned a small gun store in town and after school each day, she went to work at the store and served as bookkeeper. She had to make the night deposit for the store and on two occasions within 6 months of beginning to do so, she was robbed at the bamk's night depository, and the second time she was severly beaten by the robber. After the second incident, she got her CCL and began to carry full time. She left her purse in our department break room one morning and I just happened to notice the snubbie in her purse. I didn't say anything to her, but I guess she assumed that I had seen the pistol and she ask that I not mention it to anyone. I said "What pistol?"
Three years after she retired from teaching, the Central Office staff found out that she had been carrying a gun to school and went ape s*it crazy about it. One morning before school, the Assistant Superintendent came into our building with two City Police Officers and called all the faculty down to the Library, where she proceeded to tell all of the teachers that we were going to be searched for weapons by the Police Officers. I got the floor and told her that I would decline her offer, to which she then got in my face and said that I could either be searched or be fired. I asked her if she was going to be included in the search, and she rudely said no, she wasn't going to be searched. I then told her that I would agree to be searched if I could then in return search her. That drew a chorus of laughs from the rest of the teachers, and more than several male teachers volenteered to help me.
She then stormed out of the library and called the Superintendent, who came to the schooAlnd also got up in my face. He proceeded to tell me that if he could prove that I had prior knowledge about the retired teached carrying a firearm onto school property, he would see to it that I was fired and then took to court as a co-conspirator. After I told him that he had better get out of my face (he was related to me), I told him to have at, but that he could expect me to file a lawsuit as well against him and the school baord. The search of the teachers was dropped, but they did have the Police interview the retired teacher who stated that to her knowledge, I did not know about her carrying a concealed weapon onto school property. After this episode, when ever the hair-brained Assistant Superintendent came into the building while I was there, I suddenly had to go to the restroom, where I stayed until she left the building.
The two high schools and middle schools here have had an armed Police Officer that split time between one high school and one middle school since 1997. When that policy was adopted by our school board, violence in the four schools dropped by about 99.9%. Noone has attempted to go in and try to pull off a mass schooting in any of the schools in the county either.

Sir, I salute you! I hope you keep up the cause, I'm tired of officials ramrodding their liberal agenda down our throats that they are NOT SUBJECT TOO!!
 
All this uproar over the NRA suggesting "armed guards" at schools..... So what are school resource officers? Cops in the high schools and some middle schools. They interact and educate the kids at the same time providing safety..... Guess what they carry a gun in school.
If La Pierre had said that the sky was blue, the media and the liberals would be screaming that the sky was purple, and it was Bush's fault...
 
Damn, Rocketgeezer! Again I ask...do you and some others here really not understand the 2A and the Constitution? Been brainashed by years of politicians just ignoring it?

Actually, I have a minor in constitutional studies and am a thesis away from my masters. I also am a SCoTUS wonk, and follow the court decisions fairly closely...even the ones that have nothing to do the 2nd Amendment. My question is, do you understand that no amount of hand wringing about how the 2nd amendment doesn't say "_insert_gripe_here," you have regulations that restrict those rights... and that the Court has affirmed this multiple times over the last 200 years? Including in Heller? "Shall not be infringed" runs right up against "well regulated" in Court precedent.

What I'd like to know is, do you realize that any right can be infringed if that infringement is for public safety? The courts hold that your rights end right at point that they infringe upon someone Else's right to life. You have the right to free speech, but not to use it to incite to riot. You have the right to travel between the states, but not if you do so drunk, etc. If the legislation deems it a public hazard, and if it survives court scrutiny, the government can limit the right...including the 2nd amendment.

I don't care what weapon someone choose to exercise the right to Keep arms in their home, what kind of blithering idiot they may be, how little training they might have, or what laws they understand...as long as it is in their house. I figure anyone who enters their house without permission deserves whatever they're going to get.

However...the second they walk out the door with their firearm to exercise their right to bear arms, that right to do so comes up against my right to public safety. If they don't understand when they can draw their weapon, or how their weapon functions, or how to hit something if they use their weapon, then they put my life and that of my family's in danger. So when the government proposes that you have at least a basic safety class that includes instruction on what the laws for use of force are, I don't have a problem with it...in fact I invite it.

Sorry...I don't think a person has a right to be a menace to society, which is exactly what an untrained individual is outside of his home walking around with a loaded firearm.
 
All this uproar over the NRA suggesting "armed guards" at schools..... So what are school resource officers? Cops in the high schools and some middle schools. They interact and educate the kids at the same time providing safety..... Guess what they carry a gun in school.

What the liberals don't know about Armed guards in school , is 23,000 schools are protected by armed guards now. Bill Clinton did a lot of that!
 
Damn, Rocketgeezer! I defended you in one posts here but now you have exposed your true feelings (sort on like for gungrabbers we just want "common sense" gun laws. We don't want all your guns.) You want everyone forcibly trained instead of letting people use their own good judgement and get training on their own from a pro or more experienced friend.
I direct you to post #58 the second part. That would be BluesStringer's post. "I think it's much more stupid to give government more authority than the Constitution's authors and signers contemplated by writing that phrase, "...shall NOT be infringed" into the 2nd Amendment. Requirements that prevents one from exercising a right until they abide by them, whether they can afford those requirements or not, seems a rather obvious infringement to me." Again I ask...do you and some others here really not understand the 2A and the Constitution? Been brainashed by years of politicians just ignoring it?

Now just a minuit, knowing what you do now as to the kids mental health, you would still advocate letting him have a firearm, just because of 2nd rights?...........and as to arming teachers would you also advocate give a teacher a weapon that may have never even held a gun before and tell them here use this to defend the kids?.............I am as pro 2nd as anyone but some common sense is needed, no every teacher should not have a gun, just as some LEOs should not, (as some I know could not hit the barn if they were in it) I'm sorry you feel I slighted you, but no way would I ever just openly condone giveing someone the job of teaching our children, and give them a gun to use for protecting them with no training whatsoever, and just for the record I think the states that give permission for a carry permit with nothing more than simple backround ck is stupid, now as far as a weapon to keep in your home thats a little differant, this opinion did not just come out of the air, years ago at our carry permit class one dude and a older lady hit about everything there but ther own target, the deputys tryed to help them, but in the end they did not get there certificates, just as maybe some teachers should not
 
I'm curious to know if the people who are against armed teachers/guards in schools are also against having an armed marshal on an aircraft.

...or, an armed guard at the bank
...or, an armed guard in court
...or, an armed guard at the jewelry store
...or, an armed guard at the Social Security Office
...or, well, you get the idea....
 
The thought of having armed teachers in our schools, being bolstered by the circulating picture of the Israeli girl with the WWII rifle, fails to take one thing into consideration. The Israeli IDF is a conscription Army. Every Israeli citizen over the age of 18 serves. So every citizen is indoctrinated to the use of the gun and they also know what it is to be faced with the real prospect of maybe having to lay down your life for another.

We don't have that in the States. Our military is volunteer only. Teachers in our school system, unless they have served in a previous life before teaching, don't know what or how to react in a live shooter scenario unless they are trained for it.

I am, in no way , shape or form, detracting from the gallant efforts of teachers like Victoria Soto who died in Connecticut. I don't know the details of exactly how she died but from all accounts, she was trying to shield the children from gun fire which is a heck of a lot different than defending the kids. And that is where the change in mindset has to change. Every teacher is willing, or at least I hope they are, to shield the children in their charge. But how many teachers are willing to go head to head with an armed villan with the real possibility of having to kill another human being?

If a teacher wants to voluntarily accept the responsibility of carrying her or his gun into the school property and take full responsibility for the repercussions that would ensue a live fire fight, then I personally believe, after they have gone through thorough, proper screening and training, be allowed to do so.

But I also think the buildings need to be hardened before we harden the teachers. A steel fire door with bullet proof, reinforced glass on the front door of the school would have stopped this before it got going. The same door on every classroom would stop a cowardly attack like in Sandy Hook. Perpetrators like that coward are not prepared to overcome heavy obstacles. When they do, they move on. At the very least hardened doors and windows would give the occupants extra time for law enforcement to arrive.

JMHO guys and gals.
 
The thought of having armed teachers in our schools, being bolstered by the circulating picture of the Israeli girl with the WWII rifle, fails to take one thing into consideration. The Israeli IDF is a conscription Army. Every Israeli citizen over the age of 18 serves. So every citizen is indoctrinated to the use of the gun and they also know what it is to be faced with the real prospect of maybe having to lay down your life for another.

We don't have that in the States. Our military is volunteer only. Teachers in our school system, unless they have served in a previous life before teaching, don't know what or how to react in a live shooter scenario unless they are trained for it.

I am, in no way , shape or form, detracting from the gallant efforts of teachers like Victoria Soto who died in Connecticut. I don't know the details of exactly how she died but from all accounts, she was trying to shield the children from gun fire which is a heck of a lot different than defending the kids. And that is where the change in mindset has to change. Every teacher is willing, or at least I hope they are, to shield the children in their charge. But how many teachers are willing to go head to head with an armed villan with the real possibility of having to kill another human being?

If a teacher wants to voluntarily accept the responsibility of carrying her or his gun into the school property and take full responsibility for the repercussions that would ensue a live fire fight, then I personally believe, after they have gone through thorough, proper screening and training, be allowed to do so.

But I also think the . A steel fire door with bullet proof, reinforced glass on the front door of the school would have stopped this bebuildings need to be hardened before we harden the teachersfore it got going. The same door on every classroom would stop a cowardly attack like in Sandy Hook. Perpetrators like that coward are not prepared to overcome heavy obstacles. When they do, they move on. At the very least hardened doors and windows would give the occupants extra time for law enforcement to arrive.
The bold text was me
JMHO guys and gals.

I'm not sure how much or how little training, if any, is required in other states. But here in Arkansas to get your CC permit, after an 8 hour class, a person must put 8 out of 10 shots on a 8.5 X 11" target at 7'. They don't have to be in the center just on the target. Now if the target where at center mass it would most likely do for self defense. But just to give a teacher a gun and say here protect your students. I would hope the school district would give them more training!
I also agree that schools should be harden, the doors and windows, so as to keep armed intruders out or at least slow them down.
Armed and trained guards is the best idea, imo. And trained volunteers is acceptable also
.
But I don't think a lot of teachers are going to want to or be able use a gun. Some people in their on defense can't fire the gun anyway.
Something has got to be done, before we lose anymore children to these insane nuts!
 
But just to give a teacher a gun and say here protect your students. I would hope the school district would give them more training!

Agreed. Unless I'm mistaken, the NRA has already offered to provide the training.
 
Maybe it is time we do like Israel does and let teachers be armed? Let them wear concealed handguns and have mace. Had there been armed teachers in Connecticut there would have been less killing. When someone is slaughtering teachers and kids you MUST shoot the shooter. Time for talk and psychiatrists is over, innocent lives are being lost.

It does not have to be mandatory, let teachers choose whether they want to be armed or not. Those who wish to carry a gun will take a gun safety class and shoot at the range. If the principal in Newtown had a 9mm handgun she would not have to rushed at the shooter and be killed. She could simply have started shooting. Even if you don't kill the shooter, if you wound him badly enough to keep him from killing people you have done what needs to be done.

WAKE UP people, shooters are getting braver and we need armed teachers.

Or you can say no and count the bodies next time it happens.

:triniti:

Guns yes, mace no.
 
Maybe it is time we do like Israel does and let teachers be armed? Let them wear concealed handguns and have mace. Had there been armed teachers in Connecticut there would have been less killing. When someone is slaughtering teachers and kids you MUST shoot the shooter. Time for talk and psychiatrists is over, innocent lives are being lost.

It does not have to be mandatory, let teachers choose whether they want to be armed or not. Those who wish to carry a gun will take a gun safety class and shoot at the range. If the principal in Newtown had a 9mm handgun she would not have to rushed at the shooter and be killed. She could simply have started shooting. Even if you don't kill the shooter, if you wound him badly enough to keep him from killing people you have done what needs to be done.

WAKE UP people, shooters are getting braver and we need armed teachers.

Or you can say no and count the bodies next time it happens.

:triniti:

If the last two shooters are any indication, they don't have to be killed. As soon as there's armed resistances they commit suicide!
 
Sorry...I don't think a person has a right to be a menace to society, which is exactly what an untrained individual is outside of his home walking around with a loaded firearm.
Based on what? Please show us some statistics that prove concealed carriers from states with little or no training have been involved in any kind of incidents that would indicate they are a danger to society, and compare those to states with more training required. We'll wait.
 
Couple of things that I may have missed since this post is now ten pages long. First of all, what locations seems to have the most shootings - my research says schools, churches and an occasional hospital. Cop friends of mine tell me that the Colorado shooting happened in an area where there were many such places in a ten mile radius but the AMC was the only one with a no gun policy (not validated but makes sense). At the same times, don't recall any shootings in Gander Mountain, Cabelas etc. Not hard research just a thought. Would I want every teacher with a gun - well was in that business at one time in my life and the thought of some of them being armed scares the hell out of me - and many would be afraid to pick up a water pistol - so but then there are some like many on this board who could be armed, would want to be armed and would be there when needed to stand in the fray. As for the training, this may get me flamed by some but absolutely! I am a military vet, two years in nam and even got the Boy Scout badge, but before I started carry, took other defensive shooting training and understood a lot more than I did in the beginning (like know your target and what's beyond), I might have gotten lucky and been helpful but the odds with training are a lot more than without. It have nothing to do with the 2nd Ammendment but more with responsible, skillful carry. Ah yes some may say as you see my signature, you are an instructor, you have a bias - well any school that would want free training in my own state where I could get to can have it. Don't imagine getting any takers but the offer is on the table. It is not about money but doing what is right. Protecting our children is what is the key.
 
Now just a minuit, knowing what you do now as to the kids mental health, you would still advocate letting him have a firearm, just because of 2nd rights?...........and as to arming teachers would you also advocate give a teacher a weapon that may have never even held a gun before and tell them here use this to defend the kids?.............I am as pro 2nd as anyone but some common sense is needed, no every teacher should not have a gun, just as some LEOs should not, (as some I know could not hit the barn if they were in it) I'm sorry you feel I slighted you, but no way would I ever just openly condone giveing someone the job of teaching our children, and give them a gun to use for protecting them with no training whatsoever, and just for the record I think the states that give permission for a carry permit with nothing more than simple backround ck is stupid, now as far as a weapon to keep in your home thats a little differant, this opinion did not just come out of the air, years ago at our carry permit class one dude and a older lady hit about everything there but ther own target, the deputys tryed to help them, but in the end they did not get there certificates, just as maybe some teachers should not
Nice try. Quote me please. Where did I say I would let that kid have a gun??? Where did I say give a teacher, the way you put it, to force a teacher that never handled a gun, to take one into class. I can't waste my time with this. you come up with stuff that supports whatever you post here even though nobody said what you are saying I said. There I said it. Now this can't be confusing to you I know but it sure spins my head!
 
Actually, I have a minor in constitutional studies and am a thesis away from my masters. I also am a SCoTUS wonk, and follow the court decisions fairly closely...even the ones that have nothing to do the 2nd Amendment. My question is, do you understand that no amount of hand wringing about how the 2nd amendment doesn't say "_insert_gripe_here," you have regulations that restrict those rights... and that the Court has affirmed this multiple times over the last 200 years? Including in Heller? "Shall not be infringed" runs right up against "well regulated" in Court precedent.

What I'd like to know is, do you realize that any right can be infringed if that infringement is for public safety? The courts hold that your rights end right at point that they infringe upon someone Else's right to life. You have the right to free speech, but not to use it to incite to riot. You have the right to travel between the states, but not if you do so drunk, etc. If the legislation deems it a public hazard, and if it survives court scrutiny, the government can limit the right...including the 2nd amendment.

I don't care what weapon someone choose to exercise the right to Keep arms in their home, what kind of blithering idiot they may be, how little training they might have, or what laws they understand...as long as it is in their house. I figure anyone who enters their house without permission deserves whatever they're going to get.

However...the second they walk out the door with their firearm to exercise their right to bear arms, that right to do so comes up against my right to public safety. If they don't understand when they can draw their weapon, or how their weapon functions, or how to hit something if they use their weapon, then they put my life and that of my family's in danger. So when the government proposes that you have at least a basic safety class that includes instruction on what the laws for use of force are, I don't have a problem with it...in fact I invite it.

Sorry...I don't think a person has a right to be a menace to society, which is exactly what an untrained individual is outside of his home walking around with a loaded firearm.

First off >>> Exactly what Rhino said in post #98!!!!!
Maybe as a thesis you should write about how the constant study of case law consistently will water down the law's actual meaning from original intent of it.
I'm tired right now so I will just make one comment here now.
Did you know until recently in many states before they adopted into law the Castle Doctrine a person had a duty to retreat even in their own home. Go ahead and square that. Just for starters. Later!
 
Aielman, one other thing. My right to self preservation and self defense does not end at the boundary line of my property.
Read some of Sir William Blackstone. I am sure you know who he is being the scholar that you are.
More study of the Constitution and less study of case law that have perverted it!
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,526
Messages
610,757
Members
74,961
Latest member
jacober
Back
Top