Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Vietnam, and many others have not needed those items to beat armies.contrario said:The average person wouldn't, so we should all be entitled to have them, right? After all, in order to stand off a well regulated army and maintain freedom, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. would be necessary.Wangchung said:So you think the average man would abuse those arms?contrario said:It also covers tanks, nuclear weapons, heat seeking missiles, and sharks with lasers on their heads. Clearly all things an average person should be entitled tocowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
have.
Female shooter at Nashville Christian school
49,636 Views |
669 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Doc Holliday
And you just answered your previous post about why it doesn't say people instead of militia. Nice job of proving your own self wrong.contrario said:So "well regulated militia" means the arms are in good working order to you? Really? A militia is a body of people by almost any definition I have ever found.Wangchung said:Well regulated means the arms are in good working order. The intent was always to have protection fromD. C. Bear said:contrario said:I can see your point since the wording was chosen for a reason. Do you think there is a reason "A well regulated Militia" was included in the wording of the 2nd amendment? And what does "well regulated" mean?Wangchung said:"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.D. C. Bear said:Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.Oldbear83 said:So you won't answer the question.D. C. Bear said:They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Oldbear83 said:So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?D. C. Bear said:First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.Oldbear83 said:
Contrario: " I personally don't view"
And that's the key phrase.
And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.
So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?
I do not.
All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.
So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?
That's part of my point, actually.
We all know why that phrase was included.
The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.
The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.
There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.
The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.
Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.
Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.
Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.
We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.
We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.
I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.
If their intent was for every person to have the right to bear arms, wouldn't they have just said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."? If we are going to focus on the uniqueness of the word infringed, shouldn't we focus also on the uniqueness of the rest of the sentence?
"Well regulated" means they can hit what they
aim at.
the government's reach, not permission.
So in one post you say a militia is the people and then you contradict yourself and say it isn't.contrario said:Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.D. C. Bear said:contrario said:I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).Oldbear83 said:Vice versa pal.contrario said:I have. You are the one that must concede.Oldbear83 said:
I have provided explanation, context and evidence.
You need to do as much, or concede this one.
I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.
You ... have simply not defended your position.
I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.
The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Which is it?
The people are the militia so saying people or militia makes no difference. They are one in the same.
The other language only reinforces WHY they can keep and bear arms.contrario said:Then they would have stopped at that. I feel like I've been pretty clear. if their only intent was every man and woman (actually, if we are being honest, they were only referring to white, land-owning men) should be able to own any arm they wanted, they would have simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period. End of amendment. But that wasn't it, they included other language. And they included it for a reason. That is what I'm talking about.D. C. Bear said:contrario said:Correct, the sentence is a jumbled mess. If they intended for everyone to have an unfettered right to arms, they simply would have said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As it is, the whole militia language is included for a reason, and to some it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not to be infringed to be part of a well regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free State" and to others it means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so a well regulated militia will have people to recruit". That is the issue. But again, under either definition, the militia is the focus of the amendment, or else the words "a well regulated militia" wouldn't have been included.D. C. Bear said:contrario said:I have, I gave context to why the founding fathers would be open to private warships being donated to the cause. And I responded to your quotes from the founding fathers (great, they felt one way, they worded the actual amendment that was voted on and ratified a certain way, why was it worded that way).Oldbear83 said:Vice versa pal.contrario said:I have. You are the one that must concede.Oldbear83 said:
I have provided explanation, context and evidence.
You need to do as much, or concede this one.
I quoted multiple Founding Fathers, provided the meaning of 'regulated' as used in 1783, showed where private warships were referenced in the actual Constitution, and more.
You ... have simply not defended your position.
I've asked a simple question that you refuse to answer, if they just wanted everyone to be armed, why did they mention a "well regulated militia"? What was the point in including those words? If the inclusion of "shall not be infringed" is important, which I concede it is important, why is the inclusion of a "well regulated militia" not important in your mind? It's really a simple question.
The militia would be drawn out of the population. For it to be "well regulated," you need a population of people who are able to "bear arms," so infringing on that right would damage the ability of that militia to be "well regulated." Thus, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They actually did say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
armscowboycwr said:Those are not arms. Nice deflection.contrario said:It also covers tanks, nuclear weapons, heat seeking missiles, and sharks with lasers on their heads. Clearly all things an average person should be entitled to have.cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
noun
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
armament
noun
plural noun: armaments
military weapons and equipment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/arms-race
https://www.visionofhumanity.org/hypersonic-missiles-a-new-arms-race/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2172796-a-new-arms-race-threatens-to-unleash-laser-warfare-in-the-skies/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/chinas-new-laser-rifle-raising-concerns-new-arms-race-167810
A couple of posters said they are covered by 2nd Acowboycwr said:Those are not arms. Nice deflection.contrario said:It also covers tanks, nuclear weapons, heat seeking missiles, and sharks with lasers on their heads. Clearly all things an average person should be entitled to have.cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Three actually. And in their defense, arms is short for armaments which pretty much covers any military weapon.
The question is more if new laws passed with due process of law can restrict that right. Many already have been.
The question is more if new laws passed with due process of law can restrict that right. Many already have been.
Surprised it's not more90sBear said:
Three actually.
New information regarding the Nashville Shooter Audrey Hale shows that the Transgender killer had planned her hate crime against the Christian school for many months.
— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) April 4, 2023
Nashville Police are saying she “acted totally alone” but her detailed journals in the months leading to the… pic.twitter.com/AvipxOdw6l
cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
I've posted on here before that I support various restrictions and laws, but magazine size I think is a red herring. It takes 2 seconds to change a magazine. Sure, in certain hypothetical scenarios, that could make a minor difference, but I'm not aware of any mass shootings where authorities said that would have made a material difference. Multiple guns, with multiple spares unfortunately are just as lethal.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
Audrey Hale: What we know about the Nashville school shooter | The Independent
Based on some maps found at Hale's home, the police chief said that Hale was believed to be planning to carry out other attacks on a local mall and targeting family members.
"We strongly believe there was going to be some other targets, including maybe family members, and one of the malls here in Nashville," he said on Tuesday,
"And that just did not happen."
He previously said that more than one location had been planned for but that it appeared Hale decided against a second location due to heightened security there.
Also at Hale's home, authorities seized a sawed-off shotgun, a second shotgun, and other evidence, police said.
Investigators have also spoken with Hale's parents. Hale had no prior criminal record.
Based on some maps found at Hale's home, the police chief said that Hale was believed to be planning to carry out other attacks on a local mall and targeting family members.
"We strongly believe there was going to be some other targets, including maybe family members, and one of the malls here in Nashville," he said on Tuesday,
"And that just did not happen."
He previously said that more than one location had been planned for but that it appeared Hale decided against a second location due to heightened security there.
Also at Hale's home, authorities seized a sawed-off shotgun, a second shotgun, and other evidence, police said.
Investigators have also spoken with Hale's parents. Hale had no prior criminal record.
Las Vegas? What does that have to do with this? The Vegas shooting has way more questions than aswers including multiple shooters and shootings up and down the strip that night. It was most likely set up as a gun deal but was actually a failed assasination attempt on MBS. From the recording of the gunfire it sounds like it was an M240 machine gun that was doing the firing on the crowd at the concert. The Vegas shooting goes deep.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
How you gonna stop black market sales of larger magazines and deal with multiple magazines?!Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
sombear said:I've posted on here before that I support various restrictions and laws, but magazine size I think is a red herring. It takes 2 seconds to change a magazine. Sure, in certain hypothetical scenarios, that could make a minor difference, but I'm not aware of any mass shootings where authorities said that would have made a material difference. Multiple guns, with multiple spares unfortunately are just as lethal.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
There's been several reported situations where the changing of the magazine is what did the perp in. 8 magazines is better for victims than one magazine with 100 rounds.
cowboycwr said:It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
Absolute? So, does that mean I can openly carry my AR through TSA and onto an airplane? Or into a courthouse? Or a Florida congressional meeting?
Notice how legislators who can't do anything to keep schools safe CAN find ways to stop citizens from carrying into their workplace?
cowboycwr said:It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
I don't think it should be "absolute." So, if you are correct, then I would argue that we should modify the constitution so that, for example, nuclear powered shotguns are not legal.
D. C. Bear said:cowboycwr said:It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
I don't think it should be "absolute." So, if you are correct, then I would argue that we should modify the constitution so that, for example, nuclear powered shotguns are not legal.
I want a nuke.
Mitch Blood Green said:D. C. Bear said:cowboycwr said:It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
I don't think it should be "absolute." So, if you are correct, then I would argue that we should modify the constitution so that, for example, nuclear powered shotguns are not legal.
I want a nuke.
You want a nuke?!
You can't handle the nuke!
Mitch Blood Green said:sombear said:I've posted on here before that I support various restrictions and laws, but magazine size I think is a red herring. It takes 2 seconds to change a magazine. Sure, in certain hypothetical scenarios, that could make a minor difference, but I'm not aware of any mass shootings where authorities said that would have made a material difference. Multiple guns, with multiple spares unfortunately are just as lethal.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
There's been several reported situations where the changing of the magazine is what did the perp in. 8 magazines is better for victims than one magazine with 100 rounds.
I'm open minded on this. Do you have links?
Good luck with that ...Mitch Blood Green said:D. C. Bear said:cowboycwr said:It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
I don't think it should be "absolute." So, if you are correct, then I would argue that we should modify the constitution so that, for example, nuclear powered shotguns are not legal.
I want a nuke.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
sombear said:Mitch Blood Green said:sombear said:I've posted on here before that I support various restrictions and laws, but magazine size I think is a red herring. It takes 2 seconds to change a magazine. Sure, in certain hypothetical scenarios, that could make a minor difference, but I'm not aware of any mass shootings where authorities said that would have made a material difference. Multiple guns, with multiple spares unfortunately are just as lethal.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
There's been several reported situations where the changing of the magazine is what did the perp in. 8 magazines is better for victims than one magazine with 100 rounds.
I'm open minded on this. Do you have links?
I remember a shooter many years ago in North Carolina who was overpowered by a bar tender (ex marine) when he stopped to reload.
sombear said:Mitch Blood Green said:sombear said:I've posted on here before that I support various restrictions and laws, but magazine size I think is a red herring. It takes 2 seconds to change a magazine. Sure, in certain hypothetical scenarios, that could make a minor difference, but I'm not aware of any mass shootings where authorities said that would have made a material difference. Multiple guns, with multiple spares unfortunately are just as lethal.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
There's been several reported situations where the changing of the magazine is what did the perp in. 8 magazines is better for victims than one magazine with 100 rounds.
I'm open minded on this. Do you have links?
Gabby Gifford.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-jan-10-la-na-arizona-shooting-20110110-story.html
Mitch Blood Green said:D. C. Bear said:cowboycwr said:It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
I don't think it should be "absolute." So, if you are correct, then I would argue that we should modify the constitution so that, for example, nuclear powered shotguns are not legal.
I want a nuke.
Go get it and ask the ACLU to press your case in the federal courts.
There is a huge difference between completely restricting something from even being owned and limiting place it can be taken into.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
Absolute? So, does that mean I can openly carry my AR through TSA and onto an airplane? Or into a courthouse? Or a Florida congressional meeting?
Notice how legislators who can't do anything to keep schools safe CAN find ways to stop citizens from carrying into their workplace?
I am FOR limitations on where. Not for limitations on ownership of rifle, semi auto, clip/magazine size, etc. (outside of non citizen, minor, criminal who loses their rights, etc.). I am not for restrictions on where that create soft targets. You gave the example of a state legislature- the members may not be able to carry, visitors can not carry BUT there are usually a lot of armed police officers around and at the doors to prevent people to get in.
Schools don't have that. Or not all. Even many that have an armed officer they are not always at the front door and the overall school is still a soft, unarmed target.
cowboycwr said:There is a huge difference between completely restricting something from even being owned and limiting place it can be taken into.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:It is when it says Shall not be infringed.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Nothing is unreasonable about the first one. It keeps those not able to own from having a gun (non citizens, felons, minors).Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Arms are. Which covers pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.Mitch Blood Green said:cowboycwr said:Driving- NOT IN THE CONSTITUTIONcontrario said:An ID and training is required to operate a motor vehicle and an ID is required to board an airplane. Both of these could go against Article IV, Section 2 of the constitution (commonly interpreted by the courts as the freedom of movement clause).cowboycwr said:The point is that it should not be a requirement to own or carry at all. It is a Constitutional right. No other right requires a person to get training and carry around a card that says they got training to use their right.Osodecentx said:Why not get training? It's required for concealed carry in Tx.cowboycwr said:NO I will not respond the way YOU want me to. I will respond the way I WANT.90sBear said:"Why would there be continued required training for a Constitutional right?"cowboycwr said:And yet look at the problems some people have with police...90sBear said:If it is that simple, why hasn't it been done?cowboycwr said:Yes it is that simple.90sBear said: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?cowboycwr said: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.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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Are you serious here? This is not even close to a real world response.
I will tell you the same thing I said to Wangchung - respond to the items listed in the article I supplied. "The arguments IMO are stupid" is not a compelling response to dealing with real world challenges.
Yes that is a real world argument.
List one other constitutional right that requires ANY sort of training. Just one.
And I did address EVERY point in the article. It said "may be required" to purchase. As in in theory they might have to purchase it- without checking costs.
I got a small fingerprint safe for $65. They are not expensive. Especially as a one time thing.
What would it hurt?
An ID is required to purchase alcohol (21st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require an ID for the press (1st amendment issue)
Many states, if not all, require a church to register to practice religion (1st amendment issue)
All states require a marriage license (14th amendment issue)
Many people are pushing for an ID to vote and many of the people doing that have no problem with a person carrying a lethal weapon without any ID or training (multiple issues in the constitution).
All of these are examples of a requirement that could possibly "infringe" on a right, based on your definition. I personally don't view any of these as an infringement, nor is requiring gun owners to register their guns and take training in certain situations.
And for the record, I have several guns and I have no problem whatsoever completing the required courses and/or paperwork to maintain my right to own and use those guns, if needed.
Age for purchase- NOT IN THERE
Id required for press????? No there isn't. Unless you are talking about ID to gain access to a certain spot.
Register to practice religion???? Again what are you talking about. They register for tax purposes. Not to ask permission to be a church.
Marriage- NOT IN THERE
Voting- no issue at all requiring an ID to vote because it does not say either way in the CONSTITUTION you have to have or don't.
None of what you listed is a right specifically listed in the Constitution.
AR-15s aren't in constitution either. What is in constitution is "Well Regulated Militia."
I don't think Nashville shooter was in a militia.
one does not have to be in a militia to use their right to bear arms.
Let's agree on the right to bear arms. Why are some fighting so hard to not have regulations and some restrictions?
The regulated part? Court has already ruled you can't own machine guns. And wouldn't a grenade be effective against a home invasion?
I'd set one up on my ring camera when I'm away and put it on auto drop.
Arms, *****es!
What's unreasonable about background check or concealed permit or limit of limit on clip size?
The concealed is a little tricky as it gets to the infringement. Is it smart for people to have training, to learn the rules about the 50%, the signs places can post as a private building restricting guns, etc? Yes absolutely. Should a person HAVE to do it to be able to buy a gun. NO it says so in the Constitution. Any responsible owner would do it though.
Clip size.- This is a really silly one. Some guns because of the size of the round(bullet) can fit more in a very normal clip. Some with larger rounds fit less. So setting a very basic level means that some guns now have a clip that is really only 3/4 of the way full (depending on where the limit is set) because it is a small size round. And there is really NO JUSTIFICATION for it other than when a mass shooting comes up that usually has issues around mental health, getting guns illegally, etc.
Constitution isn't absolute. It makes no suggestion of what regulations can be created. In case after case, it's left to each generation to determine.
Fathers couldn't have envisioned people walking into school and killing 9 year olds.
Las Vegas. This is why clip size matters. If all I can load is 15, victims have a greater chance of escape.
That is absolute.
Vegas should not mean that every law abiding citizen in the US should be penalized.
Absolute? So, does that mean I can openly carry my AR through TSA and onto an airplane? Or into a courthouse? Or a Florida congressional meeting?
Notice how legislators who can't do anything to keep schools safe CAN find ways to stop citizens from carrying into their workplace?
I am FOR limitations on where. Not for limitations on ownership of rifle, semi auto, clip/magazine size, etc. (outside of non citizen, minor, criminal who loses their rights, etc.). I am not for restrictions on where that create soft targets. You gave the example of a state legislature- the members may not be able to carry, visitors can not carry BUT there are usually a lot of armed police officers around and at the doors to prevent people to get in.
Schools don't have that. Or not all. Even many that have an armed officer they are not always at the front door and the overall school is still a soft, unarmed target.
What are they soft from? They have active shooter drills.
Are they soft from divorced parents are giving over visitation? Are they soft from grandparents picking kids up?
Mitch Bloody Green: "What are they soft from? They have active shooter drills."
'Gun-Free' zones guarantee that until the cops arrive, only the murderer is armed.
'Active Shooter' drills are like those 'hide under your desk' drills from the 1950s, all they do is give you something to do while you pray you don't die.
You know what stops a murderer who wants to kill kids? A citizen with a gun who shoots the murderer.
Any other claim is excusing murder of children because politics.
'Gun-Free' zones guarantee that until the cops arrive, only the murderer is armed.
'Active Shooter' drills are like those 'hide under your desk' drills from the 1950s, all they do is give you something to do while you pray you don't die.
You know what stops a murderer who wants to kill kids? A citizen with a gun who shoots the murderer.
Any other claim is excusing murder of children because politics.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
"If you give up your right to arms eventually your freedom and liberty is compromised. A government or another group of people can do what they will with you."Oldbear83 said:
Mitch Bloody Green: "What are they soft from? They have active shooter drills."
'Gun-Free' zones guarantee that until the cops arrive, only the murderer is armed.
'Active Shooter' drills are like those 'hide under your desk' drills from the 1950s, all they do is give you something to do while you pray you don't die.
You know what stops a murderer who wants to kill kids? A citizen with a gun who shoots the murderer.
Any other claim is excusing murder of children because politics.
Oldbear83 said:
Mitch Bloody Green: "What are they soft from? They have active shooter drills."
'Gun-Free' zones guarantee that until the cops arrive, only the murderer is armed.
'Active Shooter' drills are like those 'hide under your desk' drills from the 1950s, all they do is give you something to do while you pray you don't die.
You know what stops a murderer who wants to kill kids? A citizen with a gun who shoots the murderer.
Any other claim is excusing murder of children because politics.
Let's arm all kids over 12. Seems like a good plan.
Active shooter drills, although just as worthless, are not like duck and cover drill.
We'd laugh at duck and cover drills because we didn't really expect a nuclear bomb or that radiation would see the desk and therefore avoid us.
Active shooter drills have real live active shooters. As Chappelle says (paraphrasing) The active shooter is in the drill learning the playbook.
You have an amazing gift of missing the truth.Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:
Mitch Bloody Green: "What are they soft from? They have active shooter drills."
'Gun-Free' zones guarantee that until the cops arrive, only the murderer is armed.
'Active Shooter' drills are like those 'hide under your desk' drills from the 1950s, all they do is give you something to do while you pray you don't die.
You know what stops a murderer who wants to kill kids? A citizen with a gun who shoots the murderer.
Any other claim is excusing murder of children because politics.
Let's arm all kids over 12. Seems like a good plan.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
No one has suggested that or anything even remotely close to that.Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:
Mitch Bloody Green: "What are they soft from? They have active shooter drills."
'Gun-Free' zones guarantee that until the cops arrive, only the murderer is armed.
'Active Shooter' drills are like those 'hide under your desk' drills from the 1950s, all they do is give you something to do while you pray you don't die.
You know what stops a murderer who wants to kill kids? A citizen with a gun who shoots the murderer.
Any other claim is excusing murder of children because politics.
Let's arm all kids over 12. Seems like a good plan.
Active shooter drills, although just as worthless, are not like duck and cover drill.
We'd laugh at duck and cover drills because we didn't really expect a nuclear bomb or that radiation would see the desk and therefore avoid us.
Active shooter drills have real live active shooters. As Chappelle says (paraphrasing) The active shooter is in the drill learning the playbook.
But people have said let's make schools not be soft targets by better security, windows, armed security or armed staff. Because those are more likely to stop it than any sort of law that bans a gun, magazine/clip, etc.
Oldbear83 said:You have an amazing gift of missing the truth.Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:
Mitch Bloody Green: "What are they soft from? They have active shooter drills."
'Gun-Free' zones guarantee that until the cops arrive, only the murderer is armed.
'Active Shooter' drills are like those 'hide under your desk' drills from the 1950s, all they do is give you something to do while you pray you don't die.
You know what stops a murderer who wants to kill kids? A citizen with a gun who shoots the murderer.
Any other claim is excusing murder of children because politics.
Let's arm all kids over 12. Seems like a good plan.
How so? If the right to bear arms "should not be infringed" how is it of to infringe on the rights of kids?
14th amendment grants citizenship rights to me at birth. How is it the un infringeable 2nd not allowed for kids at school?
Doesn't it take a good kid with a gun to stop a bad kid with a gun?
Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:You have an amazing gift of missing the truth.Mitch Blood Green said:Oldbear83 said:
Mitch Bloody Green: "What are they soft from? They have active shooter drills."
'Gun-Free' zones guarantee that until the cops arrive, only the murderer is armed.
'Active Shooter' drills are like those 'hide under your desk' drills from the 1950s, all they do is give you something to do while you pray you don't die.
You know what stops a murderer who wants to kill kids? A citizen with a gun who shoots the murderer.
Any other claim is excusing murder of children because politics.
Let's arm all kids over 12. Seems like a good plan.
How so? If the right to bear arms "should not be infringed" how is it of to infringe on the rights of kids?
14th amendment grants citizenship rights to me at birth. How is it the un infringeable 2nd not allowed for kids at school?
Doesn't it take a good kid with a gun to stop a bad kid with a gun?
Back in the day, kids took their guns to school. They didn't use them to shoot each other.