A Common Sense Way To Protect Students Without Violating The Constitution!

Metal detectors would be a gigantic pain in the rear. Police on campuses would be best, but they are the most expensive. My school district operates 9 schools. They simply could not afford to hire 9 full time police officers to guard all their schools. Armed and trained security officers are less expensive. Perhaps the least expensive would be to arm about 10-20% of the staff of every school. The expense would be limited to the training time, weapons, and supplies. I think the training could consist of about a week of intensive firearms training and then about 2-4 half days a year of ongoing training. The armed staff would be covert, and students would not know who they were. The down side to that is that the armed staff - to keep their weapons concealed - would be fairly lightly armed, without body armor, and without radio communication with police. But probably, better than nothing.

 

~~~~
You're right until they sue and win.

 

We can rename all public schools in a given district "Gunsmoke 1, or Gunsmoke 2 or Gunsmoke 45. I like shoot-out scenes in westerns, but that does not mean I want them in school lunch rooms or auditoriums.

 

The victims of these shootings or their surviving relatives should be the ONLY parties entitled to sue; claims made by those regarding their deadly toys would be frivolous in comparison.

 

So what is the definition of an "Assault Weapon"

~~~~
I guess that some how the Maryland Judge was shopped in order to get the decision that has been rendered. A Democrat Liberal judge appointed by Clinton stating, “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war.” What Judge King has stated is absolutely an error. All rifles, carbines, muskets, and shotguns (single, double, pump or semi-auto) are weapons of war. Whether it is a single shot muzzle loader Brown Bess or the latest semi-automatic rifle/carbine they have been and are weapons of war. There are no time stamps placed upon the Constitution or its Amendments.
So in essence Judge King's decision has banned all weapons by making his statement in direct violation of the Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution.

 

Wouldn't you rather have some trained person shoot at a mass murderer before he could complete a mass murder? And what about the deterrent value?

 

This 10-4 decision REAFFIRMED the previous SCOTUS ruling. . . . You think that redefining terms to your own satisfaction will make it unconstitutional???

 

Arm and train the teachers. Have officers rotating in an out of the school at various random times during the day. Don't allow any large bags of any kind to be taken from a vehicle in a parking lot towards the building. If they have a large object like a guitar then it must be out of the bag and the bag must be rolled up and checked before they can enter the building. Put strobe lights in the hallways that will help slow down the advance of the shooter. Being that every school as multiple speakers I never understood why they didn't try and confuse the shooter with random "freeze this is the police" statements coming from different speakers. This would also further slow the advance of the shooter as he has to determine if its actually the police or just a diversion.

And finally kick out all the emo kids. The single thread that is common among virtually all these school shootings is that its ****ing self entitles, narcissistic emo kids are the ones behind it. They walk around with black hoodies on and post their whiny self absorbed, feel bad for me bullshit on their social media and even when they do get reported nothing ever gets done about them. Kick all those mother ****ers out immediately.

 

I'd say it isn't necessary to put all thus security around a school for such a remote possible occurance.

But I'm a 2nd amendment supporter. Mostly because the huge number of crimes prevented by an armed citizen. It outnumbers the amount of crimes nearly 50 fold.

 

What like the NRA originally suggested?

 

Even IF the teachers were armed how many students would be shot before they could fire back?

 

Stationing armed police at schools is a police state, but marching door to door taking firearms is not.

Even if you repeal the 2nd amendment and seize firearms, the magnitude of the problem dictates that criminals with 1000 bucks and an hour of time will be able to obtain a firearm. Stationing police at schools is reasonable regardless.

 

Most American schools have security guards on campus all day long. Many have police cars parked outside the building most of the day. However, schools have many entrance doors. They do not have metal detectors at every entrance, most don't even have them at one entrance.

They need ten foot walls around the schools with only two main entrance gates manned by trained security officers and metal detectors. It will cost a lot: the cost should be imposed as a tax on the purchase of guns--just like the cost of medical care is imposed as a tax on the purchase of cigarettes.

 

Arming teachers is a really stupid idea.

 

This is a stupid argument. Look at other countries with strict gun control. Criminals have a much harder time getting guns because most guns are stolen from private citizens. When guns are out of circulation, crime goes down because criminals can't get a hold of them either. Look at the stats in other countries.

 

As opposed to what exactly?

 

All parts of the Constitution work together. You can't violate one, in favor of another.

 

So what, you think it's "Better" to have them shot unarmed as apposed to giving those that would prefer to be trained and armed, armed? Well that ideology is hardly a surprise coming from Australia!

Makes about the same sense as not having fire extinguishers because they can run or simple wait until the firemen get there.

 

Hardly factual!

 

How long do you think it would take for a student to get his hands on a teachers gun.

I predict, 20 minutes.

Pass the law and 20 minutes later you have an armed child in a stand off with a teacher.
I find it hard enough to stop them throwing my scissors at each other.

 

~~~~
No just stating a plain fact.
The Second Amendment does not specify what type of arms an American may or not possess to protect his family, home and himself. The first Federal control of weapons was created by Congress and President Roosevelt in 1934 to control fully automatic weapons by Taxing American citizens.
"While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934".
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

 

Gun restrictions isn't violating anyone;s rights. But yes, yes we can.
Look at the Patriot Act and other liberty and freedom grabbing laws that work against our freedoms. And you or your side cheer everytime our freedoms are removed for safety.
Her we are talking about children safety at school. And your main concern is you won't have a semi auto rifle with 30 round clips anymore. Or some one with mental issues won't get to have 2A rights.
A bit f'd up thinking, IMO.

 

Depends on what those restrictions are. How many times have anti-2nd amendment types been thwarted by the SCOTUS?

Obviously they want more than they so far have been able to take.

Children's safety at school is critical. It's incredible there is even a discussion about it. But here we are. What bothers me is the discussion keeps ignoring the elephant in the room.

Until the elephant of social media, internet, digital bullying, etc., is honestly looked at, all other efforts are just window dressing.

 

Are you kidding me?
Bullying of any sort is at the top of every school agenda in the country. Well, at least in the schools I am aware of.
But we have posters, in these forums that blame it on the fact that bullying isn't allowed as part of the problem. That giving kids trophies for participating, is part of the problem.
What is really the elephant in the room, is how we deal with mental health issues. We give them a pill and let them continue to be a part of society. No matter how ill they may be.
We used to remove the most dangerous mental ill people from society. Now they must commit a crime before anything is done.

Common sense gun restrictions should be implement along with addressing the mental health problem.
But there are those who don't want any restrictions, simply because there are millions in circulation today.
Other than getting a hard on, what purpose is a semi auto rifle with 30 round clips good for? Nothing wrong with a hard on, but it shouldn't be used to justify mass shootings.

 

Guns are freedom sonny.