School shooting

[Diekan]

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend ... ummets.htm

[ClakarEQ]

Earlier in the thread there was talk of teachers with guns to defend kids in these situations, but I wonder how long it would take until we see a teacher go psycho on his/her own classroom? I feel almost certain it would happen eventually.

Or have a student go ape-shit and steal the gun then kills the kids.

school and guns do NOT mix.

I'd rather use my tax dollars to pay armed security before I'd let "teachers" carry.

[Tuggan]

I hope I don't be come a giant walking pussy when I have children.

[ClakarEQ]

I hope I don't be come a giant walking pussy when I have children.

You won't, you will however become stronger than you ever thought you could be. You'll have no choice. Through your experience I'd like to think folks do get enlightened when it comes to "life".

[Lueyen]

It might happen eventually but not allowing teachers to carry firearms will not prevent it.

Yes it will actually. Them not having weapons with them at all times, getting all trigger happy, will prevent them from shooting people.

No if they are prone to this sort of behavior they will not care about laws or rules that prevent them from taking a firearm into a school, and they will do so anyway. The idea that a responsible adult would step over the line and start using lethal force with a fire arm because they are having a bad day and get irate is silly. How often do you hear about teachers flying off the handle and beating school children to death? Sorry but it's not as if possession of a fire arm is going to change and individuals disposition to using severe or lethal force.

It is statements like yours that show you have very little clue what you are actually talking about. Lookup the firearm related crime rates among individuals who hold concealed weapons permits. The numbers are exceedingly low, and well below comparisons of fire arm crimes perpetuated by non permit holders per capita.

[Spazz]

Less guns will never work becuase criminals wont turn thiers in.

[Lueyen]

Ahh those pesky little parts of the Bill of Rights, the ACLU isn't fond of that one either. Thankfully the founding fathers set it up in such a way that we don't get to pick and choose which of those rights we deem worth having and which ones are dated and there fore not applicable.

Very true, but our rights are still applicable to the democratic legislative process. This is not correlating to the simple truth that the Bill of Rights was drafted during a very different era and the second amendments meaning is a tad different from whether Bubba Smith can own an AK-47 legally.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It's tough to think this has any real bearing on ones selection of firearms at Mike's Gun shop, or whether our citizenry needs or should be allowed to carry around semi automatic weapons.

In modern times due to technology our media is viewed immediately and first hand by the enemies of this country, something that wasn't possible when the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Would you repeal the first amendment to curtail freedom of speech because times are different now?

In modern times terrorists operate within our borders to perpetuate large scale attacks on our citizens on our soil. Due to a changed world where technology and automation provide ample possibilities for them that was never there in the past, possibilities that can result in unprecedented attacks of a scale our founding fathers wouldn't even have seen as possible in their time. The fourth amendment protects their privacy give them additional cover from discovery, enabling them to plot and scheme to carry out such destructive attacks.

Would you repeal the fourth amendment to allow for searches of homes based on mere suspicion of terrorist activity to prevent this?


In modern times our legal system has been in many cases perverted by slick lawyers and in many cases the amount of money one has to spend on legal defense has a direct impact on the out come of a trial. On average citizens of this country are markedly more ignorant in general then those of the past.

Would you repeal the fifth and sixth and seventh amendments to get rid of corrupt trials and ignorant juries so that criminals quit getting off scott free due to manipulation of the legal system or slimy lawyers playing off a stupid jury?

In modern times the degenerates of society keep coming up with new and more and more horrific ways to commit crime would it not make sense for the punishment to fit the crime to curtail it? Repeat offenders is epidemic in scale, large metropolitan populations allow them to hide from the law in annonimity that would not have been available in the past.

Would you repeal the eighth amendment to allow us to give these people a taste of their own medicine or incarcerate repeat offenders of non violent crimes for life?

With the exception of prohibition no other amendment has ever been repealed and no changes have ever revoked any of the right protected in the first 10. Notice that the only repeal extended rights not revoked them. In fact notice that any amendments beyond the one that was repealed that did not deal with government operation have only ever extended rights, not curtailed them.

Consider this Lyion you are putting forth an argument so liberal, that even Arlos has a more conservative position then you. There is a reason we don't start monkeying around with the Bill of Rights, it is not subject to the change of time, to consider it so opens up a path that is exceedingly dangerous to our freedom and liberty.

Notice how the right to own slaves is not setup in the Bill of Rights.

Thanks to that nice 13th Amendment, drafted and resolved after the Bill of Rights. It's nice how we can make changes to antiquated and wrong beliefs or interpretations of the law.

Again I'll point out that the right to own people isn't in the Bill of Rights. Yes at one time they were considered property, but the interest of the amendment was not to destroy rights, but to extend them. By a repeal of the 2nd exactly whom are you extending rights to? There are no human beings being denied basic rights as a result of the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure someone will say this affects people right to life when they are killed by a fire arm, but that infringement of rights is related to the illegal use, not the right of possession. The right to fire arm possession unlike slavery does not directly in and of it's self subjugate the rights of any individual.

Amazingly, with the repeal of the second amendment, the security of the free state won't change one iota.

Do you honestly believe that an armed civilian populace doesn't present a much more formidable defense then an unarmed one? Sure there are military grade weapons that way outclass small arms, but one need only look at Iraq to see the effects a group of non military armed peoples can have in curtailing the objectives of a strong military with sophisticated weapons.

[Spazz]

Good post dude.

[Lyion]

The Bill of Rights is amazing, but again the right to carry a glock is in no way similar to free speech, due process, or personal liberties to me. By this analogy, not allowing people to buy crack is violating their freedoms, since you seem to be approaching this from a pure libertarian standpoint.

We currently limit what weapons people can have. By the above analogy this is a mistake and we should have no limits to weapons due to the fact it violates the spirit of the Bill of Rights. I disagree.

Also, by your above example due to the nature of the Bill of Rights, Slander should be protected and is a personal liberty. Again, I have to raise the red flag.

We have the strongest, most advanced military in the world. We have a plethora of law enforcement. There is no better legal system or separation of powers in the world. This in itself invalidates the whole meaning of the second amendment, not to mention the huge differences between due process, free speech, and Bubba needing a new shotgun.

The second amendment was created to help fight injustice. It's fair to say it no longer does that. It serves no liberty or freedom related purpose and is solely around based on gun special interest groups and a propaganda campaign that ignores the simple facts of handguns.

[Spazz]

The 2nd was created so you can protect yourself from whatever threat you might have to protect yourself from.

Guns arent going away and gun controll and bans only limit the law abiding. Im sorry you cant do the math. For all the bad shit that happens with weapons people also save thier lives. Im sorry guns give you the willies but Im not really ok with the fact that becuase guns make you scared you want to put me at risk to monsters.


Cheif im against non leathal weapons becuase what if they dont work. You shoot to stop the threat. Mace and tazers might not do that. A few .44s or .45s will for sure though.

[Lyion]

I am a military trained expert marksman. I've used a lot of guns. I hunted often growing up. My Dad was a career military officer, and was a gun nut and had more weapons than some South American countries.

I have no fear of guns. I just know the nature of what they are, and don't buy into the propaganda protection NRA crap that is a bigger cloud of bullshit than one of the NT women getting a colonic

I have done the math. People with guns are a far greater a risk for hurting themselves or killing a family member than protecting themselves.

Guns are not a defensive weapon. They are made to kill, not to protect. You are wrongly equating guns with helping you against a perceived threat. The simple truth is someone like you with a gun is the threat.

p.s. Detroit and DC are two exceptions, and it's tough for me to argue against needing a gun there, but it still doesn't change the nature of what guns are and the huge lie our country perpetuates in regards to being armed and safe. That's rubbish.

[Darcler]

There is an "interesting" show on ABC about the gunman right now. 'A Gunman Revealed'.

[Spazz]

Hey lyion where do I live and spend time again ? Im not a threat and I kind of take offense that you think I am becuase im a proud gun owner. It brings me peace of mind when I go to sleep to know that its there incase something goes bump int he night? Have you ever been a victim of any type of crime that could have ended violently? I had crackheads stake out my house and rob me everytime I left for a month. I shudder to think of what I could have walked into. I started takin it with me just for coming in the house and so it wouldnt get stolen. I know i come across as a spazz here but I assure you I am as safe as it gets with a gun.

[Diekan]

The solution to crime isn't necessarily more prisons. I believe that by and large, most people don't think "gee I can't wait to grow up so I can rob houses!"

Sure, there's always going to be that element of trailer trash and ghetto trash that will commit crime no matter what you offer them. But, you have to ask yourself - what would YOU do when the jobs aren't there, when there's no real oppertunity? Easy to say "I just make oppertunity and make it work..." Easy to say when you already have a cushy, decent paying job.

I DO in fact place a lot of the blame on our country's crime problem on the out-of-control-greed-driven corporations that aren't being held accountable for the never ending exodus of OUR jobs to the lowest bidder over seas. And, don't feed me this bullshit about how they "had" to do it to stay in business... that's a load of shit. It's being done so already-rich-as-fuck cocksockers can get even richer.

Bring back jobs and watch the crime rate go down.

[Zanchief]

It is statements like yours that show you have very little clue what you are actually talking about.

No sir, it's statements like yours that show how naive and silly your notions of good and evil are. Bad people aren't cloaked figures who plot against good people and carry out heinous crimes against them while laughing maniacally and twitching their mustache. You give guns to everyone, gun crimes will go trough the roof, because people will solve their problems with guns. People will become obsessed with them and find reasons to use them. That's why you have so many gun crimes in the US, because your society is obsessed with firearms. Twisting facts the way you are is just enabling the problem.

The solution isn't just "removing the guns", it's changing the culture of a gun crazed nation.

[Spazz]

Hey cheif go look into people who legally carry vs people that commit crimes. Your dead fuckin wrong. LEGAL GUNS AND GUN OWNERS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. punishing them isnt going to make anyone safer.

I like guns and I dont think theres anything wrong with that. My record is clean I keep to myself and stay out of troubble. Gun crime actually has a lot to do with the war on drugs but that is an entirely diffrent subject. There is no way to prevent batshit fuckers from shooting up public places. There are alot of ways that we could stop gun crimes if we really wanted to though. I beleive in freedom and that means to live and die as you chose. I should not be punished becuase of what retards do.

[Lyion]

Hey lyion where do I live and spend time again ? Im not a threat and I kind of take offense that you think I am becuase im a proud gun owner. It brings me peace of mind when I go to sleep to know that its there incase something goes bump int he night? Have you ever been a victim of any type of crime that could have ended violently? I had crackheads stake out my house and rob me everytime I left for a month. I shudder to think of what I could have walked into. I started takin it with me just for coming in the house and so it wouldnt get stolen. I know i come across as a spazz here but I assure you I am as safe as it gets with a gun.

Spazz, I'm not saying you aren't legally carrying, or are a criminal threat. That statement wasn't directed at 'you', but at all of us.

My point is anyone with a gun is a threat, due to the nature of the weapons themselves. You, me, or anyone who carries.

I respect your viewpoint that you feel it is needed for protection and many of my friends feel similar to you.

I just personally am opposed to our gun culture, and especially the proliferation of handguns that perpetuates in todays America for safety, since the facts are these guns simply make people much less so.

[Spazz]

Show me your facts.

[Griever]

Guns are not a defensive weapon. They are made to kill, not to protect. You are wrongly equating guns with helping you against a perceived threat. The simple truth is someone like you with a gun is the threat.

The police department and armed security guard companies are perfect examples of how this statement is inaccurate. They use their guns in defense only, to protect themselves or citizens.

[Arlos]

That unarmed guy who got blown away by the cops as he and a friend came out of a strip club after a bachelor party, that was going to get married the next day might disagree with you on cops always using their weapons in a defensive manner. So might those 4 students at Kent State from back in the day.

-Arlos

[KaiineTN]

It'd be nice if we could replace guns with somthing that works well to incapacitate people. Tasers have pretty limited range. We need some Star Trek phasers, set to stun!

Do you think even if we had something like that readily available, police and military forces would still use/prefer lethal weapons?

[Yamori]

The second ammendment was made to protect people from their own government - not outside invasion.

Lets look at the 2nd ammendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't think the 2nd ammendment is talking about some bizarre clause dealing with militia organizations. If it were, why doesn't it say that the right of the "militia" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It clearly says "The People" for a reason.

Take a look at the rest of the bill of rights. The consistent motif within it deals DIRECTLY with safeguards to keep wayward totalitarian-leaning governance in check. Every ammendment (of the original 10, at least) deals with guaranteed protections from governmental intrusion, bullying, coercion, and the arbitrary whims of men in power within the United States infrastructure itself. To suggest that the 2nd ammendment be the sole ammentment addressed exclusively as a protection of OUTSIDE forces seems strange to me.

I think that what the 2nd ammendment actually says, is that the security of a free state depends on its "militia" (read, persons who use force under governmental order: be they the army, police, fbi, ect - and more importantly, the officials who direct them) must be well regulated by the citizens themselves. In other words, the right to bear arms exists in order to keep the government in check, as a safeguard in stopping them from getting out of control.

The right to bear arms appears only 2nd to the right to free speech, free press, and free assembly for a reason - it is, in the worst case, what secures the protections of all the rights. It should be pretty obvious that the founding fathers were far smarter than to be as sloppy with the bill of rights as seems to be implied with the militia-rhethoric.

If you don't think that the US government could ever abandon the rights of its citizens merely because things have been stable for awhile, I think it's pretty deluded.

[Spazz]

That unarmed guy who got blown away by the cops as he and a friend came out of a strip club after a bachelor party, that was going to get married the next day might disagree with you on cops always using their weapons in a defensive manner. So might those 4 students at Kent State from back in the day.

It'd be nice if we could replace guns with somthing that works well to incapacitate people.

Ya know what ? Why dont you both come over here and jerk me off cuz your both a bunch of bitches

[Lueyen]

It is statements like yours that show you have very little clue what you are actually talking about.

No sir, it's statements like yours that show how naive and silly your notions of good and evil are. Bad people aren't cloaked figures who plot against good people and carry out heinous crimes against them while laughing maniacally and twitching their mustache.

Oh really? If you look at the investigations into these mass public shootings you find that the perpetrators nearly always plan them out. It's not spur of the moment snapping, but conscious methodical planning, in some cases the killers have done "practice runs" ect. No they aren't Snidley whiplash in a laughing craze, they tend to be cold and calculated. Take the current case for example.

Investigators believe that Cho had planned the attack for at least a month. He killed his 32 victims and wounded another 15 with a Glock 9mm pistol he bought on March 13 and a .22 calibre Walther pistol he bought last week.

No he didn't laugh or twist a mustache, he rounded up people or went into class rooms and executed them without a word. While he was an unhinged individual he didn't just snap all of the sudden and decide because he had a gun handy to start killing people.

You give guns to everyone, gun crimes will go trough the roof, because people will solve their problems with guns. People will become obsessed with them and find reasons to use them. That's why you have so many gun crimes in the US, because your society is obsessed with firearms. Twisting facts the way you are is just enabling the problem.

No one here is twisting the facts, you are just ignoring them. Time after time when areas put into effect concealed carry laws or mandatory gun ownership the effects on fire arm crime rate are at worst no change and at best crime rates going down. The actual numbers don't support your predictions about the effects.

[Griever]

That unarmed guy who got blown away by the cops as he and a friend came out of a strip club after a bachelor party, that was going to get married the next day might disagree with you on cops always using their weapons in a defensive manner. So might those 4 students at Kent State from back in the day.

-Arlos

My arguement was that guns can be used in a defensive manner and a majority of the time are used in such a way by cops. I am not familiar with the two events that you referenced above, but I'm pretty sure that, unless it was a group of crooked cops, they felt they had to shoot the individual to protect themselves or others.

Human error does not justify taking guns away from the people. If that were the case then driving cars should not be a privilege given to the public. Cars cause more injuries and deaths than guns do every year and I've seen some retarded actions and judgements by grown adults behind the wheel. I don't hear anyone saying take away driving privileges from the masses because they are irresponsible and can hurt themselves or others. And yes, people do need transportation so they can work, buy food, and in general live; But that can be countered by the use of mass transportation. Hey, no more cars would make for a safer world.