Congratulations. As to the rest, hell, I am a jerk. What's your point?
guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Congratulations. As to the rest, hell, I am a jerk. What's your point?
Good question. Myself, I think he made the right decision.
In Massachusetts (maybe everywhere), we have "Good Samaritan" laws for people who stop and give aid to people who have been involved in auto accidents. Even if they make the victim's condition worse, maybe by moving them wrong, they are protected by law because they were trying to help.
I'm not saying this is the answer to your question, just throwing it out there.
I do think it should be the same for a private citizen that it is for a police officer. They are not better than us.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Miss Anderson the home ec teacher would be quite capable of (a) taking a 20-hour live fire training/proficiency course similar to the ones given to police and then (b) barricading the door to her classrom, ducking behind her desk, and covering the door with a weapon in order to protect her students from a lunatic.
Firearms proficiency is not voodoo or black magic. It can be successfully taught to anyone who desires to learn and is willing to properly train. We teach ordinarly people to perform first-aid and CPR. We teach ordinary people how to be lifegaurds and rescue drowning victims. Why is it so hard for you to accept the idea that a teacher could be trained and equipped to protect her students in a classroom with a gun?
1BROWNWRENCH
Amatuer Malthusian
my HS history teacher/IwoJima vet would have been perfect.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
In states like mine with "shall issue" concealed carry permit laws, there already are teachers who are armed in the classroom. Concealed means concealed. In my state at least, it is legal for a permit holder to be armed on school property. The teachers who carry are not breaking the law but they are violating the terms of their employement and could be fired if it was discovered that they were carrying on the job. There are two such teachers who are members of my gun club; their attitude is that if a lunatic with an AR-15 starts shooting up the school, the survival of themselves and their students will take priority over their future employment status. I'm pretty sure that a teacher who used his/her weapon to take out a mass murderer would have no trouble finding employment in another district if he or she got fired.
1BROWNWRENCH
Amatuer Malthusian
guy taught my mother. coached football sucessfully 33 years. 1 untrained nut-job would be easy. was a tough mother.excuse my lack of caps-just had surgery on my right hand.
1BROWNWRENCH
Amatuer Malthusian
watch the school board backpedal
brett636
Well-Known Member
I can read between the lines. You want the government to enforce your views on what is responsible gun ownership which coincidentally includes a lack of gun ownership. That makes you anti-gun.
Well you tell me. What is responsible and what isn't? A handgun under the front seat? Locked away at home with safety on? On your hip at all times.? Whatever we decide is responsible is fine with me as long as there are serious repercussions for failing to be responsible. If that makes me anti gun in your wacked out paranoid gun stroking mind, then so be it. Nothing in the least bit unconstitutional about it either.
brett636
Well-Known Member
Since you asked, I will provide you with the right answer to your question although I don't think you will be able to accept it. Responsible firearm ownership is what the individual firearm owner deems responsible. You see, with freedom and rights comes responsibility, and that responsibility falls directly on the individual. It is neither the governments place nor scope to tell every person who owns a firearm what is responsible and what isn't. A firearm owner who doesn't live with mentally unstable people or children shouldn't have to worry about being in trouble with the government if his guns aren't locked up in the government approved manner. The number of scenarios of firearm ownership makes it impossible for any group of politicians or law makers to write into law what is acceptable ownership practices and what isn't. You can't make people safer by making law abiding people criminals, you can only punish those who would use guns for criminal purposes and that is where the focus should be. You come on here and tell us that an assault weapons ban, magazine capacity limits, and universal background checks will make us safer, and nothing could be further from the truth. What makes us safer is more good, law abiding people having access to firearms than those who aren't.
1BROWNWRENCH
Amatuer Malthusian
keeping my 357 in my shoulder holster on my post of the bed stopped being responsible the day I brought my first daughter home
trplnkl
555
A handgun under the front seat?...yes, that can be responsible
Locked away at home with safety on? over responsible, if it is locked away the safety being on is moot
On your hip at all times.....can be responsible
Be careful what you deem constitutional. The second amendment is pretty straight forward unless one tries to twist it out of original meaning and in tent. Bottom line is, any law enacted that makes it harder for law abiding citizens to "keep and bare arms" is unconstitutional.
in·fringe (
v.tr.1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing:
island1fox
Well-Known Member
Liberals worry and are so concerned that I treat my gun with RESPOSIBILITY. I can understand that.
How about being concerned with the children you bring into this world --that YOU are responsibile to love them, raise them ,support them teach them resposibility and also discipline them when necessary.
If much more attention was paid to this --children would be educated --would not end up in Gangs and drugs and Jail--and would not keep the cycle of poverty and government dependency - going on and on.
That would be the BEST way to reduce GUN violence !!!
How about being concerned with the children you bring into this world --that YOU are responsibile to love them, raise them ,support them teach them resposibility and also discipline them when necessary.
If much more attention was paid to this --children would be educated --would not end up in Gangs and drugs and Jail--and would not keep the cycle of poverty and government dependency - going on and on.
That would be the BEST way to reduce GUN violence !!!
A handgun under the front seat?...yes, that can be responsible
Locked away at home with safety on? over responsible, if it is locked away the safety being on is moot
On your hip at all times.....can be responsible
Be careful what you deem constitutional. The second amendment is pretty straight forward unless one tries to twist it out of original meaning and in tent. Bottom line is, any law enacted that makes it harder for law abiding citizens to "keep and bare arms" is unconstitutional.
in·fringe (n-frnj)v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing:
I defer to the Supreme Court and they disagree with you.
I challenge you or anyone else to show where I have ever, EVER supported any ban whatsoever.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
I will give you the benefit of the doubt....
And say, maybe you are just playing the devil's advocate. Let's hope so.... Fellow American.
Devil's advocate? Hardly. Look what the responders posted. Everyone is talking about "responsible" gun owners which is fine. But what about the other side of the coin? What happens when they are not responsible? Is there any civil or criminal responsibility to be had? And since you are too lazy to look back and find that I have never supported bans, I will let sober vouch for me. We have been over this time and time again.
You have poisoned the well so many times with your strawman arguments that it is impossible to have a rationale discussion with you..
A gun does not equal a fire extinguisher, a gun does not equal a defibrillator. A gun has one purpose, to kill. You are demanding that educators become qualified body guards. I have no doubts that some could do this easily, if they actually had time to do so. I also have no doubt that most would not want to, it is not why they chose the profession of being an educator.
The one thing I have learned, from seeing comments in this thread, is that a great many people here are probably crazy enough that they should not have a firearm of any type.
trplnkl
555
Please tell me what case you base that on. I admit I am guessing your sentence, "Whatever we decide is responsible is fine with me as long as there are serious repercussions for failing to be responsible." is what you are referring to.
Fact is there have been many civil case decided in the favor of the plaintive over guns not being stored in a manner to make them un-accessible to minors. As far as the SCotUS is concerned there have been cases they decided some state laws on guns were ok and some that were not. There are currently four supreme court justices that side with the liberals regardless of what the Constitution actually says.
Similar threads
