" insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,…"
Arming educators does not increase domestic tranquility or promote the general welfare. It may be a step toward common defense, but where do you go next: razor wire around schools; armored school buses?
The solution is to remove the basic cause - the gun culture. Repealing the second amendment is a start. The rest is up to our society:
Emphasize sport use of weapons
Allow concealed carry only in case of demonstrated need
Establish chain of responsibility for weapon ownership
Remove military style weapons from civilian ownership
None of this is likely to happen, so we are stuck with the problem and it is going to get much worse.
I’m impressed, Crane. Most Americans that I talk to won’t consider that there might be something wrong with the second amendment because the founding fathers were INFALLIBLE. It is gratifying to see there are Americans who can actually see a major flaw in the system.
If ambiguity were an art, the Second Amendment would be its Mona Lisa. Our Constitution has some pretty good things, checks and balances to prevent any one group from domination. My own theory is that this is the direct result of a governing agreement amongst men who didn’t trust each other any further than Tom Jefferson could throw “Little Jimmy” Madison. Or, about eight feet.
Maybe it made sense then, but it doesn’t now. Life is change, how it differs from the rocks.
Sounds like a good program. In the meantime What’s the training course for children under attack?
The whole idea of CCW is to deal with the time gap between a threat and law enforcement. The threat can be a gun, a vehicle, or a knife. People who want to kill your friends and family aren’t heavily invested in discussions on the internet.
Poking fun at an “argument” which has kept surfacing in these discussions we have held for, loathe, these many years.
“You called it an ‘assault rifle’, but it clearly does not have the M-291(a) bayonet flange which all real assault rifles have. Therefore, since you are ignorant of firearms, your argument can be dismissed as unfounded.”
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
I am not an oncologist, but am firmly opposed to cancer. As it happens, I have read quite a bit about the history and evolution of firearms. Once can trace a lot of human history in science, metallurgy, chemistry…the big technological advances we created from our fervent desire to poke holes in each other. And so it goes.
I know more about weaponry that the average Amish farmer, and I’ll cheerfully grant that I know less than you. I know more about the effect of military-designed weapons on innocent flesh that I ever wanted to. I’d prefer that my grandchildren know even less. And theirs, less still. YMMV.
Huh? Felon is not the only category for prohibited person. If the authorities had had Cruz involuntarily committed, he would have been prohibited from purchasing a firearm, but they chose not to:
This was not a case of “gun rights absolutists” stymieing the authorities. It’s a case of the authorities not utilizing the tools available to them.
Getting someone committed is harder than getting them convicted of a felony. You can prove that they did something illegal, proving that they may be a danger to themselves or other, especially when they have enough presence of mind to play along with those evaluating them, is much harder.
What tools did the authorities not use? Are you saying that they should have overridden the doctors at the mental health center?
You estimate was that about 10% had them. You estimated that somewhere between 0% and 100% actually carried in school, this is not an estimate upon which any rational decision can be made.
Your premise makes no sense If someone intends to harm others they will do so. taking away the ability to defend yourself does not help the situation. We have a violent cultural mindset complete with computer based training on how to kill people. Many of our children spend more time playing WOW then they spend in school.
We didn’t play these games when I was young. We played sports or rode our bikes or a hundred other more sociable activities . We had a higher percentage of 2 parent families with functional parents. I didn’t personally know of any kid on hard drugs.
Yes, all the negative aspects of today existed back then but in significantly smaller amounts. It was a much different environment than today. Today I know of many children involved in hard drugs. They’re either dead, in jail, or completely dysfunctional.
So your premise that guns are the problem ignores the actual problem(s).
You make my point. The problem is the gun culture.
You are correct that there are other means. I believe there are laws against getting bitten by a person with aids. Still reducing the number of guns and controlling the remainder will be the cure.
I made a foot long knife in shop class when I went to high school. I carried it around as a bookmark between classes while I was making it. There were no black helicopters swooping in to arrest me. The rural schools had gun clubs and kids shot at school. I was trained in how to use a handgun at a school.
There is no way we are ending the 2nd amendment. Either we revert back to a society that respects life or we defend ourselves from a society that doesn’t.
It’s true that the 2nd amendment is an obstacle to forming rational laws on guns. But, we constrain every right we have, including the 2nd. So, suggesting we have to surrender is nonsense.