90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

Might be the wrong person to ask. I really, REALLY want an A10 Warthog.

---

Can you answer the question? It's a simple "Yes" or "No".

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I'm sorry you didn't understand my response. If I want such weapons then others should have access too, right? Only convicted criminals lose their rights, everyone else is supposed to be assumed a decent American.

---

So you have already violated "shall not be infringed" in your response.

---

The second amendment was not written for prisoners. We have always had consequences for crimes. Only an idiot would think "Shall not be infringed" means prisoners should be armed, and only and idiot would think "shall not be infringed" means whatever they want to make up after that to change the meaning is fine.

---

That sounds like a lot of modernist interpretation to me.

Is it "shall not be infringed" or isn't it? Now you seem to be giving a different answer.

---

No, it's the same answer, you're just having difficulty understanding.

---

No, you are infringing a USA citizen's right to keep and bear
arms.

---

Prisoners don't have those rights. That's part of being convicted of a crime. If they lose the right due to committing a crime, it cannot be infringed by denying them arms. I can explain it to you but so cannot understand it for you.

---

Point out where it says that in the text of the 2nd amendment.

---

Fifth Amendment;
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
See that due process of law part? Glad we could clear this up.

---

So you DO believe that people can be deprived of property with due process of law? Like passing laws restricting what people can possess what weapons?

---

No, because law abiding citizens have their rights infringed by such laws. Prisoners have no such rights.

---

No, you just said deprived of property with due process of law is OK. So which is it?

---

Yes, due process for an individual who has been found guilty of a crime at the felony level. The Fifth Amendment was NOT saying the government can take whatever they want from you if they pass a bill saying they can take it. That's an incredibly stupid position to take.

---

Show me where it says that.

And while you are at it, show me what the constitution says about restricting access to automatic weapons to 12 year olds with suicidal ideations who aren't convicted felons.

---

Show me where it says the government can.

I believe it may the 26th amendment that address the mental capacity of minors and why the aren't afforded full rights of adult citizens when it speaks of voting. You might take the time to look it up. Or just make up the stuff that isn't in there to fit your narrative. "Shall not be infringed" means your ignorant fear of scary guns doesn't matter when speaking of my right to own scary guns.

---

No, voting is absolutely not the same thing as the right to keep and bear arms which, in your words, "shall not be infringed." That's just a modern interpretation you made up.

The reality is there are many scenarios, many people, and many weapons that you don't actually want every citizen to be able to possess anytime and anywhere they might want it. Machine guns for minors, mustard gas for undiagnosed bipolar, etc. This is exactly the reason for Scalia's quote which I posted earlier.

And this is why just mindlessly repeating, "shall not be infringed" is intellectually dishonest because no one actually thinks that. They just have a different threshold for what the restrictions should be as compared to someone
else.

---

You keep bringing up minors as if you haven't previously been shown that they don't have the full rights of an adult citizen. In order to come to your conclusion, you have to add words that aren't there and ignore amendments that are there. That's a long way to go just because you're afraid of guns .

---

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

Or, you can read the rest of the constitution, learn how minors do not have full rights of citizens and neither do prisoners, and refrain from embarrassing yourself again in the future.

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

But you conflated that to mean minors and prisoners, which is wrong, yet you're still doing it.

---

The 2nd Amendment does not mention minors, prisoners, mentally impaired, or anyone else.

ANY person, ANY weapon, ANY time. That's the 2nd Amendment as it is written. You either believe that or you don't. It's really that simple.

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

But you conflated that to mean minors and prisoners, which is wrong, yet you're still doing it.

---

The 2nd Amendment does not mention minors, prisoners, mentally impaired, or anyone else.

ANY person, ANY weapon, ANY time. That's the 2nd Amendment as it is written. You either believe that or you don't. It's really that simple.

---

Gosh, it doesn't mention non-citizens or cats and dogs either, so by your interpretation they can possess arms in America, too! You seem smart.

"Alright! Now that we have fought a war and paid for our independence with the blood of our friends and families, let's write this constitution of inalienable rights!"

"Yeah! That's sounds great, but should we really have inalienable rights to things like Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? "

"Don't worry, we may not have written any such thing and we may have just killed people and had our people killed over this topic, but people will just know that no right is absolute. I'm mean come on, we might have killed and died for this document but we aren't THAT serious about rights."

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

But you conflated that to mean minors and prisoners, which is wrong, yet you're still doing it.

---

The 2nd Amendment does not mention minors, prisoners, mentally impaired, or anyone else.

ANY person, ANY weapon, ANY time. That's the 2nd Amendment as it is written. You either believe that or you don't. It's really that simple.

---

Gosh, it doesn't mention non-citizens or cats and dogs either, so by your interpretation they can possess arms in America, too! You seem smart.

---

That's your argument, not mine. Mine says the 5th amendment grants the government the right to restrict that right with due process of law. Exactly where that line is is up for debate.

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

But you conflated that to mean minors and prisoners, which is wrong, yet you're still doing it.

---

The 2nd Amendment does not mention minors, prisoners, mentally impaired, or anyone else.

ANY person, ANY weapon, ANY time. That's the 2nd Amendment as it is written. You either believe that or you don't. It's really that simple.

---

Gosh, it doesn't mention non-citizens or cats and dogs either, so by your interpretation they can possess arms in America, too! You seem smart.

---

That's your argument, not mine. Mine says the 5th amendment grants the government the right to restrict that right with due process of law. Exactly where that line is is up for debate.

---

When you say prisoners and children have full rights you reveal exactly how much knowledge you have on this topic.

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

But you conflated that to mean minors and prisoners, which is wrong, yet you're still doing it.

---

The 2nd Amendment does not mention minors, prisoners, mentally impaired, or anyone else.

ANY person, ANY weapon, ANY time. That's the 2nd Amendment as it is written. You either believe that or you don't. It's really that simple.

---

Gosh, it doesn't mention non-citizens or cats and dogs either, so by your interpretation they can possess arms in America, too! You seem smart.

---

That's your argument, not mine. Mine says the 5th amendment grants the government the right to restrict that right with due process of law. Exactly where that line is is up for debate.

---

When you say prisoners and children have full rights you reveal exactly how much knowledge you have on this topic.

---

They don't. Because of due process of law. Which has infringed their 2nd amendment rights.

Looks like Scalia was right. Again.

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

But you conflated that to mean minors and prisoners, which is wrong, yet you're still doing it.

---

The 2nd Amendment does not mention minors, prisoners, mentally impaired, or anyone else.

ANY person, ANY weapon, ANY time. That's the 2nd Amendment as it is written. You either believe that or you don't. It's really that simple.

---

Gosh, it doesn't mention non-citizens or cats and dogs either, so by your interpretation they can possess arms in America, too! You seem smart.

---

That's your argument, not mine. Mine says the 5th amendment grants the government the right to restrict that right with due process of law. Exactly where that line is is up for debate.

---

When you say prisoners and children have full rights you reveal exactly how much knowledge you have on this topic.

---

They don't. Because of due process of law. Which has infringed their 2nd amendment rights.

Looks like Scalia was right. Again.

---

No, the children never had those rights as minors and convicted criminals LOSE those rights through due process. That in no way justifies infringing the second amendment rights of law abiding ADULT citizens and it certainly doesn't mean the second amendment isn't absolute for non-criminal adult citizens.

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

But you conflated that to mean minors and prisoners, which is wrong, yet you're still doing it.

---

The 2nd Amendment does not mention minors, prisoners, mentally impaired, or anyone else.

ANY person, ANY weapon, ANY time. That's the 2nd Amendment as it is written. You either believe that or you don't. It's really that simple.

---

Gosh, it doesn't mention non-citizens or cats and dogs either, so by your interpretation they can possess arms in America, too! You seem smart.

---

That's your argument, not mine. Mine says the 5th amendment grants the government the right to restrict that right with due process of law. Exactly where that line is is up for debate.

---

When you say prisoners and children have full rights you reveal exactly how much knowledge you have on this topic.

---

They don't. Because of due process of law. Which has infringed their 2nd amendment rights.

Looks like Scalia was right. Again.

---

No, the children never had those rights as minors and convicted criminals LOSE those rights through due process. That in no way justifies infringing the second amendment rights of law abiding ADULT citizens and it certainly doesn't mean the second amendment isn't absolute for non-criminal adult citizens.

---

Children did have that right, until a law was written that said otherwise. Convicts had that right, until a law was written that said otherwise. Mentally impaired people had that right, until a law was written that said otherwise. Mustard gas was allowed, until a law was written that said otherwise. Nuclear weapon grade plutonium could be obtained, until a law was written that said otherwise.

The 2nd amendment is absolute. Until a law is passed that says otherwise. Many already have. I'm done here.

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

"This question has already been answered"

No, no it has not. Governments create law, while the Nation's Founders made it very clear that government does not create rights. So claiming "due process of law" overrides plain text of one of the Rights is false on its face.

Also, no one has even tried to explain why the phrase "shall not be infringed" does not appear in any other amendment. That distinction is very much relevant to the discussion.

"This conversation has already run its course"

If you believe so, you are free to leave, I contend your side is ducking questions and concepts they are unwilling to face.

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

"This question has already been answered"

No, no it has not. Governments create law, while the Nation's Founders made it very clear that government does not create rights. So claiming "due process of law" overrides plain text of one of the Rights is false on its face.

Also, no one has even tried to explain why the phrase "shall not be infringed" does not appear in any other amendment. That distinction is very much relevant to the discussion.

"This conversation has already run its course"

If you believe so, you are free to leave, I contend your side is ducking questions and concepts they are unwilling to face.

---

Have fun arguing that the US government isn't allowed to restrict property with due process of law (also written into the Bill of Rights) and that your former felony convict neighbor should be able to buy mustard gas and that his 16 year old manic depressive son should be able to buy a fully automatic weapon off the internet.

I'm done.

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Because it was understood in the 18th century, just like it is today, that rights were not absolute.

---

Riiiiight, they just didn't bother writing that part down. Hahahahaha

---

They didn't believe that people would be so dense as to think that rights were absolute, so they didn't bother writing it down.

But let's see how your interpretation works on other amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A law against child porn is "a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

Laws against libel and slander are laws abridging freedom of speech and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

Do you want for any USA citizen to have access to any weapon any time they want it anywhere they want it?

---

I want an answer to my question. I asked first, after all.

Keep in mind that in American history, private ownership of artillery and warships is a historical fact.

So I'd suggest that the Founding Fathers were pretty clear that they wanted people to decide what weapons were appropriate and enough, not a government which - also a historical fact - might enslave the population if they could.

---

This question has already been answered. It means shall not be in infringed without due process of law as specified within the 5th amendment (as Wangchung so kindly quoted for us) which the founding fathers also spent time crafting.

This conversation has already run its course. Either you believe ANY person can possess ANY weapon ANY time they want, or you believe the 5th amendment gives the government the right to limit that and it's up for debate exactly what those limitations should be.

---

But you conflated that to mean minors and prisoners, which is wrong, yet you're still doing it.

---

The 2nd Amendment does not mention minors, prisoners, mentally impaired, or anyone else.

ANY person, ANY weapon, ANY time. That's the 2nd Amendment as it is written. You either believe that or you don't. It's really that simple.

---

Gosh, it doesn't mention non-citizens or cats and dogs either, so by your interpretation they can possess arms in America, too! You seem smart.

---

That's your argument, not mine. Mine says the 5th amendment grants the government the right to restrict that right with due process of law. Exactly where that line is is up for debate.

---

When you say prisoners and children have full rights you reveal exactly how much knowledge you have on this topic.

---

They don't. Because of due process of law. Which has infringed their 2nd amendment rights.

Looks like Scalia was right. Again.

---

No, the children never had those rights as minors and convicted criminals LOSE those rights through due process. That in no way justifies infringing the second amendment rights of law abiding ADULT citizens and it certainly doesn't mean the second amendment isn't absolute for non-criminal adult citizens.

---

Children did have that right, until a law was written that said otherwise. Convicts had that right, until a law was written that said otherwise. Mentally impaired people had that right, until a law was written that said otherwise. Mustard gas was allowed, until a law was written that said otherwise. Nuclear weapon grade plutonium could be obtained, until a law was written that said otherwise.

The 2nd amendment is absolute. Until a law is passed that says otherwise. Many already have. I'm done here.

---

Well gee, the constitution is really just a bunch of ideas on paper as long as we don't give an gravity to the words themselves. You're right, no right is absolute...unless you have the weapons to enforce/protect them. But you keep thinking disarming citizens will prevent crime and tyranny. You're so much smarter than any of the architects of the US constitution...

You were done before you started, hoss.

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Because it was understood in the 18th century, just like it is today, that rights were not absolute.

---

Riiiiight, they just didn't bother writing that part down. Hahahahaha

---

They didn't believe that people would be so dense as to think that rights were absolute, so they didn't bother writing it down.

But let's see how your interpretation works on other amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A law against child porn is "a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

Laws against libel and slander are laws abridging freedom of speech and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

---

I didn't see "shall not be infringed" on the first amendment so you still can't watch your child porn.
Imagine being so **** all stupid as to think the constitution came with an unspoken caveat that all rights were subject to the whims of the government. Incredible.

Still not an answer, but yes you are done.

Jacques Strap said:

---

Will TN arrest them and give them the same treatment as the J6 people that stormed the capitol?

🚨 BREAKING: Leftists storm the Tennessee Capitol demanding more gun control measures.

h/t: @TheTNHoller pic.twitter.com/d2K0Kb5t1c

— MRCTV (@mrctv) March 30, 2023

---

Rowdy tourists?

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Because it was understood in the 18th century, just like it is today, that rights were not absolute.

---

Riiiiight, they just didn't bother writing that part down. Hahahahaha

---

They didn't believe that people would be so dense as to think that rights were absolute, so they didn't bother writing it down.

But let's see how your interpretation works on other amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A law against child porn is "a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

Laws against libel and slander are laws abridging freedom of speech and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

---

I didn't see "shall not be infringed" on the first amendment so you still can't watch your child porn.
Imagine being so **** all stupid as to think the constitution came with an unspoken caveat that all rights were subject to the whims of the government. Incredible.

---

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make *no law,*" so by your definition your child porn should be legal ("no law" means "no law" right?) Fortunately, of course, no court has ever or will ever accept your view of the law, so there's that.

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Because it was understood in the 18th century, just like it is today, that rights were not absolute.

---

Riiiiight, they just didn't bother writing that part down. Hahahahaha

---

They didn't believe that people would be so dense as to think that rights were absolute, so they didn't bother writing it down.

But let's see how your interpretation works on other amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A law against child porn is "a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

Laws against libel and slander are laws abridging freedom of speech and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

---

I didn't see "shall not be infringed" on the first amendment so you still can't watch your child porn.
Imagine being so **** all stupid as to think the constitution came with an unspoken caveat that all rights were subject to the whims of the government. Incredible.

---

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make *no law,*" so by your definition your child porn should be legal ("no law" means "no law" right?) Fortunately, of course, no court has ever or will ever accept your view of the law, so there's that.

---

Your desire to label raping children on film "free speech" doesn't make it a first amendment right. You see, raping children is a crime. You can't rob a bank, **** a little kid, kill someone and say its merely you expressing yourself because you filmed it. Sorry.

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

JXL said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

JXL said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

90sBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

redfish961 said:

---

To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?

While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.

Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.

All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.

That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.

For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.

Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?

I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.

I don't accept that notion.

---

The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.

---

I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?

There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.

---

Yes it is that simple.

The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.

It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.

There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.

It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.

As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....

---

If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?

Insurance cost is a "bad argument"? A police officer goes through a lot of standardized and regulated training with firearms as opposed to someone simply "carrying out their Constitutional right." Yes, I think insurance companies would be more wary of someone who does not have the same level of training being responsible for having a firearm around children. I didn't say to not try something, I said your solution is likely not as easy as you make it out to be.

How much would training cost for 10% of the staff at an entire school? Not just and initial course, I mean continued training at multiple times a year, year after year? How much does that cost compare to a one time construction cost?

I know some teachers that would be fine with it, I know some that are adamantly opposed. So we both just have anecdotal evidence there. If so many are open to it, why don't we see surveys from pro-gun groups showing that?

As I said, I don't know the actual numbers and would be curious.

Either way, I think you have glossed over some complicating factors.

---

And yet look at the problems some people have with police...

Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right? What continued training do drivers have to do? And driving accidents kill far more than guns each year.

I haven't glossed over anything. Just highlighted that the arguments IMO are stupid. It is a guaranteed protected right and there should not have to be the things you mentioned.

NO OTHER right in the Constitution requires training to be able to do. This one should be no different.

Even if there is yearly training required the cost of that would be far less than many of the others the state is thinking about doing.

---

No constitutional right is absolute.

---

So what does "Shall not be infringed" mean, then?

---

As with every other constitutional right, it means "shall not be infringed, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."'

If constitutional rights were absolute, you would end up with libel laws and child porn restrictions being unconstitutional.

---

So why does it only say "Shall not be infringed" and none of the words you added?

---

Because it was understood in the 18th century, just like it is today, that rights were not absolute.

---

Riiiiight, they just didn't bother writing that part down. Hahahahaha

---

They didn't believe that people would be so dense as to think that rights were absolute, so they didn't bother writing it down.

But let's see how your interpretation works on other amendments:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A law against child porn is "a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

Laws against libel and slander are laws abridging freedom of speech and therefore must be unconstitutional, right?

---

I didn't see "shall not be infringed" on the first amendment so you still can't watch your child porn.
Imagine being so **** all stupid as to think the constitution came with an unspoken caveat that all rights were subject to the whims of the government. Incredible.

---

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make *no law,*" so by your definition your child porn should be legal ("no law" means "no law" right?) Fortunately, of course, no court has ever or will ever accept your view of the law, so there's that.

---

Not really speech.

Jacques Strap said:

---

Trans person shoots up a school and it’s the trans community under attack. Who can take this administration seriously?

— William Scott (@truthnotkind) March 30, 2023

---

GFY

The Transgender Day of Vengeance went down the memory hole and has evolved into the Transgender Day of Visibility

Biden says transgender people 'shape our nation's soul' in official proclamation https://t.co/voPj4QsK1w

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 30, 2023

Jacques Strap said:

---

Trans person shoots up a school and it’s the trans community under attack. Who can take this administration seriously?

— William Scott (@truthnotkind) March 30, 2023

---

"Our hearts go out to the German Army, as they are under attack right now in the Warsaw Uprising."

Jacques Strap said:

---

Trans person shoots up a school and it’s the trans community under attack. Who can take this administration seriously?

— William Scott (@truthnotkind) March 30, 2023

---

I'm sure the Chrisitan families who will spend Easter Sunday next week w/o their loved ones, their children are thinking the same exact thing.