CDZ Guns for teachers. Some questions

[pismoe]

HERES a bit more info on police and the latest school massacre V.S.. --- Report: Four of Sheriff Scott Israel's Deputies Waited Outside Douglas High During School Shooting | Breitbart ---

 

[Nosmo King]

What weapons will teachers have at school? Guns, of course.

What is the process for training these teachers? Gun training, of course.

Will there be a gun safe in schools? Maybe. Or not.

Will there be a 24 hour, 365 day security guard to guard the guns in schools? No.

Who will certify armed teacher gun competence? Certified Gun Teachers, of course.

Will a teacher be expected to shoot a student? Of course.

What will be the costs of liability to put guns in schools? Same as for any school marksmanship squad or armed security guard, of course.

Will parents be told which teachers and which classrooms are equipped with guns? No, of course.

What becomes of schools where no school staff agrees to ne armed? Who can say?

Will the guns be equipped with sensors allowing only those with fobs or rings to fire them? No, of course.

Who pays for the guns? Likely the carriers, but does it matter?

And finally, if a concealable weapon is mandated, will such weapons be effective against more powerful AR? And if they are deemed adequate against an AR, what then is the virtue of an AR in home defense? After all, if a pistol is good enough to defend school children, why is it not deemed adequate to protect a home?

Why do you ask stupid questions?

----------------------------------------- aw haw , good answers to stupid questions about a common sense problem , i like them . All the question of Nosmo are simply designed to slow or stop a common sense idea that MAY help save lives of widdle kids in Gun Free School Zones because Nosmo and those like him want to continue to have Gun Free School Zones Billy .

These are not stupid questions.

Eye of the beholder.

Just because you are all in favor of making schools armed

I am not in favor of it, but events demand it.

The imposition of the gun culture into institutions that parents are legally obliged to send their children to is a grave decision. It should not be made by assuming cinematic outcomes.

What was the recent event if not cinematic?

And so far, no one has addressed the last question I posed I the OP.

It is not a question of virtue. Comparative necessity is not the deciding factor in a constitutional right, but desire. I choose.

Recent events demand a lot of action no, but arming teachers is one acting n demanding extreme examination. It must not be enacted by default, or lack of imagination.

Arming teachers assume the arise of the cinematic hero, the hero gunslinger. Dirty Harriet. Reality suggests a teacher desperately trying to calm two dozen children down, sheltering them, dealing with her own fears and then engaging in a fire fight with a guy holding an AR.

The real question is: why have that AR in the first place? If it can be, as proffered by the gun lovers, defeated with a concealed handgun, what is the virtue, what makes it good as a weapon of self defense? Can't we say that such weapons are used in an attack more effectively than in defense? Why the need for an attack weapon?

----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .

Please cite precisely where you have an absolute right to an AR. You don't have an absolute right to a machine gun. You don't have an absolute right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Further, you don't have an absolute right to practice any religion you want. Some religions have the rite of animal sacrifice, but not in America. You don't have an absolute right to say anything you want. Where does it say you have an absolute right to an AR. If other weapons can be restricted, if other rights can be restricted, why not restrict the weapon of choice of mass shooters?

If defending a schoolroom can be adequately done with a handgun, what makes an AR necessary if not as a tool of murderers?

 

[Nosmo King]

----------------------------------------- aw haw , good answers to stupid questions about a common sense problem , i like them . All the question of Nosmo are simply designed to slow or stop a common sense idea that MAY help save lives of widdle kids in Gun Free School Zones because Nosmo and those like him want to continue to have Gun Free School Zones Billy .

These are not stupid questions.

Eye of the beholder.

Just because you are all in favor of making schools armed

I am not in favor of it, but events demand it.

The imposition of the gun culture into institutions that parents are legally obliged to send their children to is a grave decision. It should not be made by assuming cinematic outcomes.

What was the recent event if not cinematic?

And so far, no one has addressed the last question I posed I the OP.

It is not a question of virtue. Comparative necessity is not the deciding factor in a constitutional right, but desire. I choose.

Recent events demand a lot of action no, but arming teachers is one acting n demanding extreme examination. It must not be enacted by default, or lack of imagination.

Arming teachers assume the arise of the cinematic hero, the hero gunslinger. Dirty Harriet. Reality suggests a teacher desperately trying to calm two dozen children down, sheltering them, dealing with her own fears and then engaging in a fire fight with a guy holding an AR.

The real question is: why have that AR in the first place? If it can be, as proffered by the gun lovers, defeated with a concealed handgun, what is the virtue, what makes it good as a weapon of self defense? Can't we say that such weapons are used in an attack more effectively than in defense? Why the need for an attack weapon?

----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .

So what do you do when the government wants to ban motorcycles? Motorcycles are just one type of vehicle but they won't be missed because we still have cars, trucks, and bicycles.

There are also many other types of semi-auto rifles with high-capacity magazines. 20 or 30 of them that I can think of off the top of my head. Any one of them could easily done as much damage as the Florida school shooter's AR.

Don't confuse the use of 'AR' with a specific weapon. In this context (and we all know context is important) 'AR' means Assault Rifle.

 

[JGalt]

“What weapons will teachers have at school?”

One would assume semi-automatic handguns (pistols), presumably in 9 x 19mm.

But it requires a great deal of training, practice, and experience to become even moderately proficient with a pistol. Learning the proper grip, managing recoil and the reciprocating slide is not something that can be mastered with one training session and a day at the range; indeed, becoming truly proficient can take years.

Hence the idiocy of arming teachers.

They learned to be teachers, didn't they?

 

[pismoe]

hey look , argue all you like as gun owners fight against you NKing . The AR15 is the 21st century's modern musket and it fills the proper role in the reasoning of Americas Second Amendment . You don't like it , i do , you won't change my mind , i won't change your mind so lets fight and argue NKing .

 

[pismoe]

These are not stupid questions.

Eye of the beholder.

Just because you are all in favor of making schools armed

I am not in favor of it, but events demand it.

The imposition of the gun culture into institutions that parents are legally obliged to send their children to is a grave decision. It should not be made by assuming cinematic outcomes.

What was the recent event if not cinematic?

And so far, no one has addressed the last question I posed I the OP.

It is not a question of virtue. Comparative necessity is not the deciding factor in a constitutional right, but desire. I choose.

Recent events demand a lot of action no, but arming teachers is one acting n demanding extreme examination. It must not be enacted by default, or lack of imagination.

Arming teachers assume the arise of the cinematic hero, the hero gunslinger. Dirty Harriet. Reality suggests a teacher desperately trying to calm two dozen children down, sheltering them, dealing with her own fears and then engaging in a fire fight with a guy holding an AR.

The real question is: why have that AR in the first place? If it can be, as proffered by the gun lovers, defeated with a concealed handgun, what is the virtue, what makes it good as a weapon of self defense? Can't we say that such weapons are used in an attack more effectively than in defense? Why the need for an attack weapon?

----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .

So what do you do when the government wants to ban motorcycles? Motorcycles are just one type of vehicle but they won't be missed because we still have cars, trucks, and bicycles.

There are also many other types of semi-auto rifles with high-capacity magazines. 20 or 30 of them that I can think of off the top of my head. Any one of them could easily done as much damage as the Florida school shooter's AR.

Don't confuse the use of 'AR' with a specific weapon. In this context (and we all know context is important) 'AR' means Assault Rifle.

----------------------------------- AR means ARMALITE RIFLE because ARMALITE was the original maker of the M16 and then the AR15 . After that other makers started building the AR15 rifle and varients for consumers , I think that thats the story Nosmo .

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What weapons will teachers have at school? Guns, of course.

What is the process for training these teachers? Gun training, of course.

Will there be a gun safe in schools? Maybe. Or not.

Will there be a 24 hour, 365 day security guard to guard the guns in schools? No.

Who will certify armed teacher gun competence? Certified Gun Teachers, of course.

Will a teacher be expected to shoot a student? Of course.

What will be the costs of liability to put guns in schools? Same as for any school marksmanship squad or armed security guard, of course.

Will parents be told which teachers and which classrooms are equipped with guns? No, of course.

What becomes of schools where no school staff agrees to ne armed? Who can say?

Will the guns be equipped with sensors allowing only those with fobs or rings to fire them? No, of course.

Who pays for the guns? Likely the carriers, but does it matter?

And finally, if a concealable weapon is mandated, will such weapons be effective against more powerful AR? And if they are deemed adequate against an AR, what then is the virtue of an AR in home defense? After all, if a pistol is good enough to defend school children, why is it not deemed adequate to protect a home?

Why do you ask stupid questions?

----------------------------------------- aw haw , good answers to stupid questions about a common sense problem , i like them . All the question of Nosmo are simply designed to slow or stop a common sense idea that MAY help save lives of widdle kids in Gun Free School Zones because Nosmo and those like him want to continue to have Gun Free School Zones Billy .

These are not stupid questions.

Eye of the beholder.

Just because you are all in favor of making schools armed

I am not in favor of it, but events demand it.

The imposition of the gun culture into institutions that parents are legally obliged to send their children to is a grave decision. It should not be made by assuming cinematic outcomes.

What was the recent event if not cinematic?

And so far, no one has addressed the last question I posed I the OP.

It is not a question of virtue. Comparative necessity is not the deciding factor in a constitutional right, but desire. I choose.

Recent events demand a lot of action no, but arming teachers is one acting n demanding extreme examination. It must not be enacted by default, or lack of imagination.

Arming teachers assume the arise of the cinematic hero, the hero gunslinger. Dirty Harriet. Reality suggests a teacher desperately trying to calm two dozen children down, sheltering them, dealing with her own fears and then engaging in a fire fight with a guy holding an AR.

The real question is: why have that AR in the first place? If it can be, as proffered by the gun lovers, defeated with a concealed handgun, what is the virtue, what makes it good as a weapon of self defense? Can't we say that such weapons are used in an attack more effectively than in defense? Why the need for an attack weapon?

----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .

No ‘rights’ are ‘violated’ when a jurisdiction bans the possession of AR platform rifles.

Indeed, the courts have consistently held that such restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, consistent with the Second Amendment.

The banning of AR platform rifles is a political – not legal – issue until the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of such a ban.

And given the current political climate there will be no ban.

 

[Nosmo King]

“What weapons will teachers have at school?”

One would assume semi-automatic handguns (pistols), presumably in 9 x 19mm.

But it requires a great deal of training, practice, and experience to become even moderately proficient with a pistol. Learning the proper grip, managing recoil and the reciprocating slide is not something that can be mastered with one training session and a day at the range; indeed, becoming truly proficient can take years.

Hence the idiocy of arming teachers.

They learned to be teachers, didn't they?

What makes you think that the abilities to become a teacher and the abilities to become a proficient marksman are one in the same?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Please cite precisely where you have an absolute right to an AR.

The Bill of Rights, Second Amendment. Arms is an all-encompassing term, and shall not be infringed means precisely that.

"Congress shall make no law" applies to the document, you know, not just the first.

You don't have an absolute right to a machine gun.

I do if I pay Class 3 taxes.

You don't have an absolute right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

I can. Again, pay the tax.

10 Insane Weapons You Can Legally Own - Mandatory

Further, you don't have an absolute right to practice any religion you want. Some religions have the rite of animal sacrifice, but not in America.

Yes in America, called slaughterhouses. It's where your Whopper comes from.

You don't have an absolute right to say anything you want.

What can I not say?

 

[JGalt]

----------------------------------------- aw haw , good answers to stupid questions about a common sense problem , i like them . All the question of Nosmo are simply designed to slow or stop a common sense idea that MAY help save lives of widdle kids in Gun Free School Zones because Nosmo and those like him want to continue to have Gun Free School Zones Billy .

These are not stupid questions.

Eye of the beholder.

Just because you are all in favor of making schools armed

I am not in favor of it, but events demand it.

The imposition of the gun culture into institutions that parents are legally obliged to send their children to is a grave decision. It should not be made by assuming cinematic outcomes.

What was the recent event if not cinematic?

And so far, no one has addressed the last question I posed I the OP.

It is not a question of virtue. Comparative necessity is not the deciding factor in a constitutional right, but desire. I choose.

Recent events demand a lot of action no, but arming teachers is one acting n demanding extreme examination. It must not be enacted by default, or lack of imagination.

Arming teachers assume the arise of the cinematic hero, the hero gunslinger. Dirty Harriet. Reality suggests a teacher desperately trying to calm two dozen children down, sheltering them, dealing with her own fears and then engaging in a fire fight with a guy holding an AR.

The real question is: why have that AR in the first place? If it can be, as proffered by the gun lovers, defeated with a concealed handgun, what is the virtue, what makes it good as a weapon of self defense? Can't we say that such weapons are used in an attack more effectively than in defense? Why the need for an attack weapon?

----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .

Please cite precisely where you have an absolute right to an AR. You don't have an absolute right to a machine gun. You don't have an absolute right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Further, you don't have an absolute right to practice any religion you want. Some religions have the rite of animal sacrifice, but not in America. You don't have an absolute right to say anything you want. Where does it say you have an absolute right to an AR. If other weapons can be restricted, if other rights can be restricted, why not restrict the weapon of choice of mass shooters?

If defending a schoolroom can be adequately done with a handgun, what makes an AR necessary if not as a tool of murderers?

You see, that's where we disagree. I believe the United States Constitution is perfect as written. Whereas you believe it can be bent, twisted badly-quoted, and revised to support anything you want to believe in.

The Second Amendment does not specify what type of weapon we can or cannot own. At the time of it's writing, the predominant weapons to overthrow tyranny were single shot muskets, pistols, and cannons.

But look at the intent and purpose of the second Amendment: It was a safety clause to allow the American people to overthrow their own government, should it become a repressive regime.

Times have changed since then: Our government is armed with not only AR-style rifles, but all sorts of goodies.So are you saying the only things we should be allowed to possess, are single shot black powder muskets and pistols, and antiqued cannons?

There's where you are wrong. Actually as a law-abiding citizen of this country, I do have the constitutionally-protected absolute right to own a machine gun or a a rocket propelled grenade launcher for that matter. As long as they are federally-registered weapons, I pass the necessary criminal background checks, and I pay the $200 tax stamp to the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

----------------------------------------- aw haw , good answers to stupid questions about a common sense problem , i like them . All the question of Nosmo are simply designed to slow or stop a common sense idea that MAY help save lives of widdle kids in Gun Free School Zones because Nosmo and those like him want to continue to have Gun Free School Zones Billy .

These are not stupid questions.

Eye of the beholder.

Just because you are all in favor of making schools armed

I am not in favor of it, but events demand it.

The imposition of the gun culture into institutions that parents are legally obliged to send their children to is a grave decision. It should not be made by assuming cinematic outcomes.

What was the recent event if not cinematic?

And so far, no one has addressed the last question I posed I the OP.

It is not a question of virtue. Comparative necessity is not the deciding factor in a constitutional right, but desire. I choose.

Recent events demand a lot of action no, but arming teachers is one acting n demanding extreme examination. It must not be enacted by default, or lack of imagination.

Arming teachers assume the arise of the cinematic hero, the hero gunslinger. Dirty Harriet. Reality suggests a teacher desperately trying to calm two dozen children down, sheltering them, dealing with her own fears and then engaging in a fire fight with a guy holding an AR.

The real question is: why have that AR in the first place? If it can be, as proffered by the gun lovers, defeated with a concealed handgun, what is the virtue, what makes it good as a weapon of self defense? Can't we say that such weapons are used in an attack more effectively than in defense? Why the need for an attack weapon?

----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .

Please cite precisely where you have an absolute right to an AR. You don't have an absolute right to a machine gun. You don't have an absolute right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Further, you don't have an absolute right to practice any religion you want. Some religions have the rite of animal sacrifice, but not in America. You don't have an absolute right to say anything you want. Where does it say you have an absolute right to an AR. If other weapons can be restricted, if other rights can be restricted, why not restrict the weapon of choice of mass shooters?

If defending a schoolroom can be adequately done with a handgun, what makes an AR necessary if not as a tool of murderers?

There’s not an ‘absolute’ right to own any firearm.

 

[JGalt]

“What weapons will teachers have at school?”

One would assume semi-automatic handguns (pistols), presumably in 9 x 19mm.

But it requires a great deal of training, practice, and experience to become even moderately proficient with a pistol. Learning the proper grip, managing recoil and the reciprocating slide is not something that can be mastered with one training session and a day at the range; indeed, becoming truly proficient can take years.

Hence the idiocy of arming teachers.

They learned to be teachers, didn't they?

What makes you think that the abilities to become a teacher and the abilities to become a proficient marksman are one in the same?

They're not. Actually, learning the four basic rules of firearms safety, becoming trained on how to operate and maintain your weapon, and becoming a proficient marksman is easier than becoming a teacher.

That's why we have so many firearms owners in this country, and so few teachers.

 

[Nosmo King]

Please cite precisely where you have an absolute right to an AR.

The Bill of Rights, Second Amendment. Arms is an all-encompassing term, and shall not be infringed means precisely that.

"Congress shall make no law" applies to the document, you know, not just the first.

You don't have an absolute right to a machine gun.

I do if I pay Class 3 taxes.

You don't have an absolute right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

I can. Again, pay the tax.

10 Insane Weapons You Can Legally Own - Mandatory

Further, you don't have an absolute right to practice any religion you want. Some religions have the rite of animal sacrifice, but not in America.

Yes in America, called slaughterhouses. It's where your Whopper comes from.

You don't have an absolute right to say anything you want.

What can I not say?

Are those taxes an infringement on what you see as your absolute rights?

Slaughterhouses have no bearing on the religious rite of live animal sacrifice.

And shout "Fire!" in a theater and see if what you say cannot be held as a criminal offense.

 

[JGalt]

These are not stupid questions.

Eye of the beholder.

Just because you are all in favor of making schools armed

I am not in favor of it, but events demand it.

The imposition of the gun culture into institutions that parents are legally obliged to send their children to is a grave decision. It should not be made by assuming cinematic outcomes.

What was the recent event if not cinematic?

And so far, no one has addressed the last question I posed I the OP.

It is not a question of virtue. Comparative necessity is not the deciding factor in a constitutional right, but desire. I choose.

Recent events demand a lot of action no, but arming teachers is one acting n demanding extreme examination. It must not be enacted by default, or lack of imagination.

Arming teachers assume the arise of the cinematic hero, the hero gunslinger. Dirty Harriet. Reality suggests a teacher desperately trying to calm two dozen children down, sheltering them, dealing with her own fears and then engaging in a fire fight with a guy holding an AR.

The real question is: why have that AR in the first place? If it can be, as proffered by the gun lovers, defeated with a concealed handgun, what is the virtue, what makes it good as a weapon of self defense? Can't we say that such weapons are used in an attack more effectively than in defense? Why the need for an attack weapon?

----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .

Please cite precisely where you have an absolute right to an AR. You don't have an absolute right to a machine gun. You don't have an absolute right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Further, you don't have an absolute right to practice any religion you want. Some religions have the rite of animal sacrifice, but not in America. You don't have an absolute right to say anything you want. Where does it say you have an absolute right to an AR. If other weapons can be restricted, if other rights can be restricted, why not restrict the weapon of choice of mass shooters?

If defending a schoolroom can be adequately done with a handgun, what makes an AR necessary if not as a tool of murderers?

There’s not an ‘absolute’ right to own any firearm.

Well you got me there. A right can still be taken away if you commit certain felonies. But absolute or not, I am a law-abiding citizen of this country so I do have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[pismoe]

here you go Nosmo , just a little info to help make you sound smarter Nosmo . --- What Does AR in AR15 Rifle Mean? ---

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Please cite precisely where you have an absolute right to an AR.

The Bill of Rights, Second Amendment. Arms is an all-encompassing term, and shall not be infringed means precisely that.

"Congress shall make no law" applies to the document, you know, not just the first.

You don't have an absolute right to a machine gun.

I do if I pay Class 3 taxes.

You don't have an absolute right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

I can. Again, pay the tax.

10 Insane Weapons You Can Legally Own - Mandatory

Further, you don't have an absolute right to practice any religion you want. Some religions have the rite of animal sacrifice, but not in America.

Yes in America, called slaughterhouses. It's where your Whopper comes from.

You don't have an absolute right to say anything you want.

What can I not say?

Are those taxes an infringement on what you see as your absolute rights?

Of course. If I pay the tax and have the weapon, I am no different than if there was no tax and I had the weapon, except I'm out a few hundred bucks.

Slaughterhouses have no bearing on the religious rite of live animal sacrifice.

What's the difference?

And shout "Fire!" in a theater and see if what you say cannot be held as a criminal offense.

As there are consequences to any misuse of a right.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

here you go Nosmo , just a little info to help make you sound smarter Nosmo . --- What Does AR in AR15 Rifle Mean? ---

It means ALL RIGHT!

 

[EGR one]

What weapons will teachers have at school?

What is the process for training these teachers?

Will there be a gun safe in schools?

Will there be a 24 hour, 365 day security guard to guard the guns in schools?

Who will certify armed teacher gun competence?

Will a teacher be expected to shoot a student?

What will be the costs of liability to put guns in schools?

Will parents be told which teachers and which classrooms are equipped with guns?

What becomes of schools where no school staff agrees to ne armed?

Will the guns be equipped with sensors allowing only those with fobs or rings to fire them?

Who pays for the guns?

And finally, if a concealable weapon is mandated, will such weapons be effective against more powerful AR? And if they are deemed adequate against an AR, what then is the virtue of an AR in home defense? After all, if a pistol is good enough to defend school children, why is it not deemed adequate to protect a home?

----------------------------------------------- lots of silly questions designed to stop or slow Arming of teachers that want to be armed . Luckily we have the NRA that are the gun Specialists and trainers to much of Americas Military and police as well as USA citizens and many others in the world . Anyway , all your questions will be answered by their policies and i am sure that YOU will like that NKing .

Isn't arming teachers something responsible people would like more information about? Is this move so trivial that the American people should just cede thenprocess to a lobbying group without question?

And why would you consider the questions posed in the OP silly? Are you not reasonable and responsible enough to engage in civil discourse?

What have been the consequences when citizens abrogate their responsibilities to bureaucrats, or worse, political lobbying groups?

Each state, and each school board will decide if teachers will be armed, if school guards will be hired, and if schools are hardened against intruders. They will establish the rules and procedures by which this will be accomplished. If you, or anyone else, disagrees with whatever your state, and/or school board decides, then you, or anyone else, is free to take it up with them.

 

[NoNukes]

Who would want to live in a country where they feel the teachers need to be armed?

Twenty-five million North Koreans.

Yeah, the worst country in the world to live in. Who, in a country you would want to live in?

 

[NoNukes]

Who would want to live in a country where they feel the teachers need to be armed? Move to a civilized country.

sorry we are already living in a country like that

Yes, so move to a civilized country.