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 ---
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .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.These are not 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 .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?
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.
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?
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.----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .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.These are not 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 .
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.
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?
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.
“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.
----------------------------------- 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 .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.----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .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.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.
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?
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.
No ‘rights’ are ‘violated’ when a jurisdiction bans the possession of AR platform rifles.----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .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.These are not 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 .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?
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.
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?
What makes you think that the abilities to become a teacher and the abilities to become a proficient marksman are one in the same?“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?
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.
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?----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .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.These are not 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 .
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.
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?
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.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?----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .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.These are not 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 .
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.
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?
If defending a schoolroom can be adequately done with a handgun, what makes an AR necessary if not as a tool of murderers?
What makes you think that the abilities to become a teacher and the abilities to become a proficient marksman are one in the same?“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?
Are those taxes an infringement on what you see as your absolute rights?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?
There’s not an ‘absolute’ right to own any firearm.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?----------------------------------------------------- there it is , get rid of the AR . I prefer RIGHTS being kept intact NKing .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.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.
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?
If defending a schoolroom can be adequately done with a handgun, what makes an AR necessary if not as a tool of murderers?
Are those taxes an infringement on what you see as your absolute rights?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?
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.
here you go Nosmo , just a little info to help make you sound smarter Nosmo . --- What Does AR in AR15 Rifle Mean? ---
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?----------------------------------------------- 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 .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?
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?
Yeah, the worst country in the world to live in. Who, in a country you would want to live in?Who would want to live in a country where they feel the teachers need to be armed?
Twenty-five million North Koreans.
Yes, so move to a civilized country.sorry we are already living in a country like thatWho would want to live in a country where they feel the teachers need to be armed? Move to a civilized country.