Two school shootings this week....

[ezkl2230]

I agree it is a basic responsibility of the school district, but as you can see the districts aren't doing such a great job. Ideas need to be generated for schools to come up with a solution to this issue. I still stand by my idea, so far I haven't heard any better ideas. Pretty sure every single teacher is not going to carry a weapon, even if given the permission.
Being a parent means making sacrifices for your child. My example of cable is just an example. A parent can provide for the school security payment, any way they wish. A small payment each month shouldn’t make that much difference, when you consider how many families will be paying for the security. You know what they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We all know providing schools is the right thing to do, for the communities. Taxpayers have done this and are still continuing to build schools. For instance, the Sandy Hook building is being demolished and being replaced with a new one. Let’s hope it has a security system set in place to protect everyone in the school. Our taxpayers are overburdened as it is with the national debt. Did I read your post correctly? Should we keep adding additional expenses? Could the request of top-notch school security do what PPACA couldn’t do, shut the government down permanently? Of course we could raise the debt ceiling a little higher.

You don't see the contradictions in your own argument. You argue against adding expense to overburdened taxpayers, yet you have no trouble telling those same taxpayers that they have to ante up to pay for increased security.

MY idea, on the other hand, is in line with what Constitutional Constructionists, Tea Partiers, and all other proponents of small, responsible government have called for all along - FORCING schools to live within their means and prioritize their spending. Before taking on new projects, be sure that your current obligations are being met. Security of students, faculty and staff is at the top of that list. You pay for THOSE things first. If that means putting off a new pet project or upgrading your fleet of lease vehicles for administrators (they have their own vehicles, anyway) for a few months or years, then that's what you do - the same kinds of decisions WE as citizens have to make all the time.

And yes, you also take advantage of the willingness of those teachers/faculty/staff who desire to carry on the job - or even community volunteers - to pay for their own training to supplement what the school district is OBLIGATED to provide.

I agree that school districts have not done a good job at all providing for the safety of our kids. But whose fault is that? We ELECT the people who make those decisions. Start holding them responsible for making the RIGHT decisions based on the RIGHT priorities.

But you know, adding a security tax contradicts your own argument.

Now I'M going to ask YOU a question - when was the last time YOU went to a school board meeting, or even sent an email, demanding your school district to get its priorities straight? You may not have kids in school, but you LIVE in the community. You have a vested interest in what happens in your schools. From what I see in your post, you want to curse the darkness while you demand that someone else lights the candle.

 

[ezkl2230]

In don't think it could have been explained any better than that. Well said! You should consider speaking to the states and school boards about this because you have a unique way of wording it and it makes complete sense to me.

Thank you. I am giving very serious consideration to running for political office here in Michigan.

 

[ezkl2230]

You know, I never thought of having retired vets as voluntary security at schools. What a heck of an idea, and I bet a lot of them would be more than willing to continue to serve the people. Thanks Blues.

Thinking this through, I bet there are a lot of folks who run firearm training who would be willing to offer their training to teachers if the teachers were required to go through such training to carry at school.

If you google "soldier stands guard at child's school, you will see that there are a number of military personnel that have volunteered for this very post.

And most of the schools told them they were welcome to do so - as long as they left their weapons at home.

EDITED:

Somewhere along the line, Americans bought into the misguided notion that all we have to do is provide a show of strength/force, and all of the bad guys will cringe in fear. It's that very notion that got 200 Marines killed in the Beirut bombing. Middle East experts repeatedly warned the president that a show of force would accomplish nothing, that we either had to go all out in our involvement in Beirut or stay home. But the president knew better. The result? 200 flag draped coffins.

A show of strength/force only works for so long - and then you have to back it up, because someone ALWAYS calls your bluff eventually. As it is most people would rather feel safe than actually be safe - especially if it means that THEY might have to actually DO something.

 

[Firefighterchen]

You know, I never thought of having retired vets as voluntary security at schools. What a heck of an idea, and I bet a lot of them would be more than willing to continue to serve the people. Thanks Blues.

Thinking this through, I bet there are a lot of folks who run firearm training who would be willing to offer their training to teachers if the teachers were required to go through such training to carry at school.

There have been numerous firearms academies offering free training to any or a select amount of teachers (front sight offered three teachers per school). Here's an article about Texas and Ohio, but I've read about academies across the states offering these free course.

 

[BluesStringer]

What the hell is the world coming to?

The End.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Everyone has the right to feel safe at work, this includes all school employees.

I'm sorry... I must have missed that particular "Right" in this Dicument....

Link Removed

So strange how the anti-gun folk use that very same "Right" to push for more (and illegal!) gun control..


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'm sorry... I must have missed that particular "Right" in this Dicument....

Link Removed

So strange how the anti-gun folk use that very same "Right" to push for more (and illegal!) gun control..


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

This is a tough one...did God or nature not give us the ability to feel? What makes our naturally born ability to own guns any different than our naturally born ability to feel? If we don't have a Right to feel, can the government say feeling angry is illegal?

Guess I'll have to ponder this topic longer.

 

[AndeyHall]

This is a tough one...did God or nature not give us the ability to feel? What makes our naturally born ability to own guns any different than our naturally born ability to feel? If we don't have a Right to feel, can the government say feeling angry is illegal?

Guess I'll have to ponder this topic longer.

I'll have to agree with that one. The Constitution does say "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Anybody been happy if they don't feel safe? I'd say safety is one of those reasonably happy things. The reason I say "reasonably" is because someone might argue that murdering people might make someone happy, yet a reasonable person couldn't argue that so I didn't want someone playing that card with the devil's advocate.

 

[superprincess]

Thank you. I am giving very serious consideration to running for political office here in Michigan.

Great idea! But seriously, I thought you were a politician. If you do run, keep in mind, there is always the option of asking parents to send a check to the school each month, to help pay for a security program. End of discussion.

 

[ezkl2230]

End of discussion.

Hmmm...

There's a problem here. You are laboring under the delusion that I was discussing this with you in the first place. In order for me to be discussing this with you, I would first have to accept that you were presenting a valid idea.

I don't - you didn't.

There was no discussion between you and I. I pointed out the problem with your idea. I demonstrated how security can be provided for by re-prioritizing spending. You yammered on about adding a security tax.

There was no discussion to end -- assuming that I accept your authority to proclaim a discussion ended, which I don't.

If I ever choose to run for office, I won't count on your vote.

 

[BluesStringer]

Great idea! But seriously, I thought you were a politician. If you do run, keep in mind, there is always the option of asking parents to send a check to the school each month, to help pay for a security program. End of discussion.

ezkl2230 just got done explaining to you in this post that it would be against his (laudable) principals to ask (or force) anyone to pay more for government schools when tightening the belt in spending would free up any money needed for new security personnel/programs. Why would you attempt to get him to go against his principles, and then say "end of discussion?"

There are far too few politicians anywhere in this country who clearly state, and then stand by, sound fiscal principles, and when someone comes along who says that's what they're planning, they should be supported, encouraged and patted on the back with a healthy dose of "Atta boy," not "Screw your principles, end of discussion!"

From a little earlier in the thread, you said:

....parents should pay for the security of their children when at school. Is it going to hurt them to write a check to the school each month.

I don't have kids, but I do own property, I do pay property taxes, those taxes do go to funding the schools in my area, and I would no more consider saying to the parents of the students of those schools, "Turn off your cable and pay the freight for security because the School District can't spend the money that all of us send it responsibly, and hey, what's it going to hurt you to pay extra?"

I'm sure no fan of the dismal tax systems quasi-functioning in this country right now, but whether or not I have kids in school, I still pay for those schools and have just as equal a say-so as those who do have kids in 'em. I stand with them. Tighten your belt, Mr. School Board Member, make the kids in your charge as secure from harm as is humanly possible, and make do with whatever you got that's left over.

ezkl2230's suggestions are highly commendable. I'll thank others not to put themselves in the position of judging who gets hurt by charges that originate from government entities (a tax by any other name is still a tax), and who doesn't. Government gets quite enough of our money. Live with it.

Blues

 

[psalm134verse2]

I've been a school teacher for 20 years. Over the last year I've decided it would be a good idea for teachers to be armed. I'm 50 years old and have never owned a handgun or fired one. I just received my permit to buy a gun today. After I purchase my gun, I will be pursuing a Concealed Carry permit. I will begin to train, train and train to be a responsible gun owner. After I've been through some training and feel that I have some level of expertise, I'm going to approach the school board with the suggestion of having their teachers carry a gun. It's pretty obvious to me that our students need protection not gun laws. Why do we want to wait for another shooting in our schools. I'm a proactive teacher. I now believe that I need to be proactive towards their safety from intruders, and I'm more than willing to do whatever I can to insure their safety in my classroom and school.

 

[wolf_fire]

I swear all these school shootings have everything to do with the way they're trying to combat violence in schools. I don't know about the schools where you live, but I know at my high school, if you got into a fight there was a good chance you were gonna be expelled. Then you pile that on top of this bullying epidemic. These kids who are being bullied are probably telling all the adults they can who aren't doing anything about it, and they're too scared to handle it themselves (by punching the kid in the face) for fear of being expelled and facing their parents. That is until they keep it bottled up for so long until they can't take it anymore that they show up for school with a 9mm or a 12ga shotgun and start blowing peoples heads off.

When the day comes that I have children of my own and they get to be old enough to have to deal with these issues at school, I'm definitely going to teach them that if someone starts bullying them, you first ask them to stop (which probably won't work). If it doesn't work, then you tell a teacher and tell them if they don't put a stop to it (because I guarantee most teachers blow it off as nothing and don't ever do anything about it) then you have permission from your parents to take care of it yourself. That should definitely get school administration's attention.

The teachers are too damn lazy to go after bullies, yet they have no probably with suspending or expelling elementary school children who innocently point their fingers in the shape of a gun or chew their pop tarts into a certain shape. What the hell is the world coming to?

I agree with the essence of your post. However, if student A came to you and said student B was bullying him, and now you go and talk to student B and ask him if he did, and he says no, and you talk about all the different ways a student can be bullied and he still continues to say no, what do you do? You haven't seen anything. You don't wish to punish someone inadvertently. Now, let's say student B gets a lot of reports about him bullying. Now you bring in the parents. The parents ask point blank, did you see it? If you haven't then guess what.... there isn't a damned thing any teacher/principal, etc can do about it. Kids aren't stupid, they hide things, especially bullying very well. The best that can be done is to get student A counseling, but the punishment of student B can't be done without sufficient reason. Someone "saying" it happened isn't sufficient reason.

Now let's go in another direction. Let's say student A lied about student B bullying him. The school lays down the law and suspends student B for three days. Now guess what you've done? You've created a situation in which student B doesn't trust student A nor does he trust the school to ever help him out. You've actually turned a student who maybe wasn't a bully into a bully.

It's easy to spout words and say the schools don't do anything about bullying, but unless you actually witness the bullying, what can anyone do about it?

Now if this particular child that you make an example of in your post decides that "the teachers are too damned lazy" to do anything about it. My question to you after reading my post, what the hell did the parent of that child do to prevent their kid from bringing in the 9mm or 12 ga. Don't put all this on top of the teachers. The states and the school boards have effectively tied their hands when it comes to punishment.

 

[CoolClownFish]

I've been a school teacher for 20 years. Over the last year I've decided it would be a good idea for teachers to be armed. I'm 50 years old and have never owned a handgun or fired one. I just received my permit to buy a gun today. After I purchase my gun, I will be pursuing a Concealed Carry permit. I will begin to train, train and train to be a responsible gun owner. After I've been through some training and feel that I have some level of expertise, I'm going to approach the school board with the suggestion of having their teachers carry a gun. It's pretty obvious to me that our students need protection not gun laws. Why do we want to wait for another shooting in our schools. I'm a proactive teacher. I now believe that I need to be proactive towards their safety from intruders, and I'm more than willing to do whatever I can to insure their safety in my classroom and school.

Thank you.

 

[wolf_fire]

I've been a school teacher for 20 years. Over the last year I've decided it would be a good idea for teachers to be armed. I'm 50 years old and have never owned a handgun or fired one. I just received my permit to buy a gun today. After I purchase my gun, I will be pursuing a Concealed Carry permit. I will begin to train, train and train to be a responsible gun owner. After I've been through some training and feel that I have some level of expertise, I'm going to approach the school board with the suggestion of having their teachers carry a gun. It's pretty obvious to me that our students need protection not gun laws. Why do we want to wait for another shooting in our schools. I'm a proactive teacher. I now believe that I need to be proactive towards their safety from intruders, and I'm more than willing to do whatever I can to insure their safety in my classroom and school.

Best wishes to you. You are a friend to education and to the 2nd Amendment. I have gone down this route with my own school district, to no avail..... yet!

I will continue to advocate for the safety of our children in our schools. May you do the same. My hat is off to you.

 

[ezkl2230]

BTW, for the record, I am not a politician, I have never been elected to public office. I was on staff as a legislative researcher in the MI House of Reps at one time. Now I sell guns for a national sporting goods company.

 

[wolf_fire]

BTW, for the record, I am not a politician, I have never been elected to public office. I was on staff as a legislative researcher in the MI House of Reps at one timd. Now I sell guns for a national sporting goods company.

You should do a raffle that anyone that has over 1500 likes should get a free firearm.

:crazy_pilot::jester::lol::yes4::yes4::yes4::dance3:

 

[CharlesMorrison]

This is a tough one...did God or nature not give us the ability to feel? What makes our naturally born ability to own guns any different than our naturally born ability to feel? If we don't have a Right to feel, can the government say feeling angry is illegal?

Guess I'll have to ponder this topic longer.

The Anti-Gun crowd uses the same argument. They have a right to not be in fear of average people carrying guns.
They (The Brady Camp, Mom's Demand Action etc) say that their fear of guns trumps any right of gun owners.
I don't agree with them. I don't agree with any comment by anyone that puts Fear of an Object above my Second Amendment Right to protect myself and my loved ones.
My post was not a philosophic post.
"Your Right" to feel safe disappeared Long Ago. Look at the violence we have. The immense cruelty that one can can visit upon another. If you think you have a right to be safe, you are going to have an uphill battle. Hell.. The Police can't defend you! They don't even have an obligation to help you at all!
Human nature is violent. It's deplorable. It's vile and one needs to take measures to protect yourself.
Does one "right" supersede another? Why is one right placed in the bill of rights while one is a preamble?
Does the majorities desire trump an individual desire?
We live in a Constitutional Republic where my rights are equal and protected from the masses.
I see in the Bill of Rights my ability written down on parchment proclaiming my individual right to self defense from those who may seek to do me harm be it fellow mankind or from my Government. Specifically spelled out as such. I don't see anywhere else about ones right to live free from the "fear of" my guns.
FEAR is an emotion. You can't legislate emotion and if you could... Our "loving government" would have done so Decades ago!
Emotions have gotten more people killed than I can count. Emotions are primal, visceral and personal. We don't live on Planet Vulcan and as yet, we as a whole have not dispensed with emotion in our daily life.
Let's not dwell on the irrational. The Fear of an object that has zero power on its own. I refuse to live my life like that.


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[Firefighterchen]

The Anti-Gun crowd uses the same argument. They have a right to not be in fear of average people carrying guns.
They (The Brady Camp, Mom's Demand Action etc) say that their fear of guns trumps any right of gun owners.
I don't agree with them. I don't agree with any comment by anyone that puts Fear of an Object above my Second Amendment Right to protect myself and my loved ones.
My post was not a philosophic post.
"Your Right" to feel safe disappeared Long Ago. Look at the violence we have. The immense cruelty that one can can visit upon another. If you think you have a right to be safe, you are going to have an uphill battle. Hell.. The Police can't defend you! They don't even have an obligation to help you at all!
Human nature is violent. It's deplorable. It's vile and one needs to take measures to protect yourself.
Does one "right" supersede another? Why is one right placed in the bill of rights while one is a preamble?
Does the majorities desire trump an individual desire?
We live in a Constitutional Republic where my rights are equal and protected from the masses.
I see in the Bill of Rights my ability written down on parchment proclaiming my individual right to self defense from those who may seek to do me harm be it fellow mankind or from my Government. Specifically spelled out as such. I don't see anywhere else about ones right to live free from the "fear of" my guns.
FEAR is an emotion. You can't legislate emotion and if you could... Our "loving government" would have done so Decades ago!
Emotions have gotten more people killed than I can count. Emotions are primal, visceral and personal. We don't live on Planet Vulcan and as yet, we as a whole have not dispensed with emotion in our daily life.
Let's not dwell on the irrational. The Fear of an object that has zero power on its own. I refuse to live my life like that.


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

Your Right to bear arms was lost long ago right along with your Right to feel. All Rights are important.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Your Right to bear arms was lost long ago right along with your Right to feel. All Rights are important.

Then by God, we TAKE them back!


Sent from behind enemy lines.