Another School Shooting, this time in Florida

[Antiboyscout]

OrcaCommander, your decision to unharness yourself or not wear a seatbelt doesn't affect the level at which other people are at risk. If this is a question of personal liberty and responsibility, I'll say the rights of school children sharing tips on how to play dead by smearing the still-warm blood of a classmate on your face trumps your privileges as a responsible gun owner.

"privileges"

privilege

There we have it. you do not see it as a fundamental right but a privilege to be revoked at the discretion of others. This is a fundamental conflict of thought and understanding, and why no consensus can be reached.

[Paul Walker]

OrcaCommander, your decision to unharness yourself or not wear a seatbelt doesn't affect the level at which other people are at risk. If this is a question of personal liberty and responsibility, I'll say the rights of school children sharing tips on how to play dead by smearing the still-warm blood of a classmate on your face trumps your privileges as a responsible gun owner.

"privileges"

privilege

There we have it. you do not see it as a fundamental right but a privilege to be revoked at the discretion of others. This is a fundamental conflict of thought and understanding, and why no consensus can be reached.

You have the right to own a gun.

The constitution does not specify the types of armament you are allowed. THAT is up to the government and the courts to decide. Various ammendments and rights in the constitution are very specific where they wanted to be "3/5th of a vote" for instance. All it says is that you have the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia.

So allow access to a pistol or revolver to all persons, but once you start looking at purchasing weapons which have the ability to mow down tens of people at once, then you must go through a course like you would for driving a car. You are tested to make sure that you are mentally competent to handle such a weapon, and physically capable too.

Have this as a law that comes in over time, so any guns currently in the possession of members of the public are exempt from this (similar to the way catalytic converters were introduced in cars). So no gun is EVER taken away from a person by the government under this new regulation. Finally, once 20-50 years have passed, a new rule (on the books, but inactive) comes into play, making it illegal to sell ammunition for any weapon to a person if they do not have a valid licence for that kind of weapon.

Under this system: a) everyone still has access to guns for self-protection. b) guns of a certain grade will be harder to acquire for those who may use them inappropriately (gun clubs would have different rules, and may have some of the higher grade weapons for use on-site by members). c) ammunition becomes more controlled, making it harder for people with illegal weapons to access it. d) no-one loses a gun to this law.

[Antiboyscout]

You have the right to own a gun.

"A" gun. No I have the right to own as many as I please.

The constitution does not specify the types of armament you are allowed. THAT is up to the government and the courts to decide. Various ammendments and rights in the constitution are very specific where they wanted to be "3/5th of a vote" for instance. All it says is that you have the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia.

Militia argument is old hat and debunked. It requires desperately twisting the grammar of the second amendment to fit what you want. Phrases like "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" need to be hand waved away.

So allow access to a pistol or revolver to all persons, but once you start looking at purchasing weapons which have the ability to mow down tens of people at once, then you must go through a course like you would for driving a car. You are tested to make sure that you are mentally competent to handle such a weapon, and physically capable too.

First NO. Second why do people think handguns are less deadly than rifles? Most shootings are done with handguns. Third I don't need a psych eval. to buy a car or truck despite the current destructive use of trucks recently.

Have this as a law that comes in over time, so any guns currently in the possession of members of the public are exempt from this (similar to the way catalytic converters were introduced in cars). So no gun is EVER taken away from a person by the government under this new regulation. Finally, once 20-50 years have passed, a new rule (on the books, but inactive) comes into play, making it illegal to sell ammunition for any weapon to a person if they do not have a valid licence for that kind of weapon.

Trading the future for the present is not a good trade. The "ammo is not protected" argument is also pretty bunk at this point.

Under this system: a) everyone still has access to guns for self-protection. b) guns of a certain grade will be harder to acquire for those who may use them inappropriately (gun clubs would have different rules, and may have some of the higher grade weapons for use on-site by members). c) ammunition becomes more controlled, making it harder for people with illegal weapons to access it. d) no-one loses a gun to this law.

Self protection is only one of many reasons to own a gun. From hunting to sport to potential revolution. All of these reasons are a valid one to own a gun. Again, banning ammunition is not legal. The argument of "you can have a gun just never use it" is invalid.

[Admiral X]

The constitution does not specify the types of armament you are allowed. THAT is up to the government and the courts to decide. Various ammendments and rights in the constitution are very specific where they wanted to be "3/5th of a vote" for instance. All it says is that you have the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia.

Actually, if you read other documents the founders wrote, like the Federalist Papers, it becomes pretty obvious that they meant arms that were what the average infantryman carried, as the reasoning was that the average citizen could become an average infantryman in time of need. That's the entire reason for the militia clause, and not that membership in one was required, as is often put forward by the "reasonable gun control" side. The argument you put forward is frankly quite Orwellian, and is the exact same reasoning given for the absolute trampling the 4th Amendment has taken over the last three Presidencies, where you literally had a spokesman from the FBI saying "we decide what's 'unreasonable'." No, all you and people like you are doing is trying to undermine the rights of others to suit your own political agenda, which I'm sure you've convinced yourself is for our own good.

So allow access to a pistol or revolver to all persons, but once you start looking at purchasing weapons which have the ability to mow down tens of people at once, then you must go through a course like you would for driving a car. You are tested to make sure that you are mentally competent to handle such a weapon, and physically capable too.

Incidentally, pistols are the type of firearm used in most crime. I know it's not as sexy as the fantasy you seem to have about "assault weapons," but there it is.

[SuccubusYuri]

Reaching around to the practical side of the thread: No, teachers will never be armed, IF ONLY for the litigious questions. Who is responsible when a teacher, eventually, kills a student? Be that collateral in a gunfight or one of the teachers being unstable? And don't give me shit, we hire so many child molesters you can't say we wouldn't get at least one shooter in waiting.

To say nothing of inevitable negligence https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-teach ... -found-it/

So who is responsible? Is the memorial service going to be "We are here to honor the four victims, plus the two Ms Peters accidentally blew away, by the way for Ms Peters 4th period your essays are still due next Monday"? Do those families get left with a sense of zero justice? When it comes to guns, is the school responsible for arming them? The governor? A subcontractor who has no legal responsibility? How do we fund the training program we would need to develop, because this is a completely unique combat situation that you can't even plop a marine into and expect to handle correctly? Will the federal government develop it? A military contractor?

This is to say nothing of the base issue at hand; Teachers are there to educate students. Most shooters are current, or very recent, students. You are asking human beings, the human psyche, to, on a dime, turn that educator/student relationship into one of enemy combatant. If you want this to work, you need to hire teachers who are comfortable, at any moment, just killing one of their students. That just feels like MORE problems of the litigious kind waiting to happen. And not very productive to the educational environment, just as a bonus.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Also, there's the inevitable "Who is going to pay for it."
The question of arming teachers is purely theoretical until we change our public school system so the kids don't need to bring their own damn pencils and the teachers aren't working their days off at Walmart.

[Admiral X]

And this is where you tell people to put their money where their mouth is and have someone start a new tax as a means of generating revenue for school security. I'd be all for that, as long as it actually goes toward what it's supposed to and not sports, as is often the case with school funds.

[Mercury01]

Actually, if you read other documents the founders wrote, like the Federalist Papers, it becomes pretty obvious that they meant arms that were what the average infantryman carried, as the reasoning was that the average citizen could become an average infantryman in time of need. That's the entire reason for the militia clause, and not that membership in one was required, as is often put forward by the "reasonable gun control" side.

If so, that would refer to the armaments available to the average infantryman of the late 18th Century. The average citizen hasn't needed to be an average infantryman since the draft, and even then they were given basic training. And Jefferson himself advised Americans to revise and rewrite the constitution every twenty years or so to keep people engaged in their own governance.

[Admiral X]

Pretty sure someone else already called out how farcical it is to say or imply arms should be limited to what was available when the Constitution was written, so I won't bother explaining it myself.

[excalibur]

Also, there's the inevitable "Who is going to pay for it."
The question of arming teachers is purely theoretical until we change our public school system so the kids don't need to bring their own damn pencils and the teachers aren't working their days off at Walmart.

So tell me who paid for the Broward Sheriff's Department's Lamborghini?

If so, that would refer to the armaments available to the average infantryman of the late 18th Century. The average citizen hasn't needed to be an average infantryman since the draft, and even then they were given basic training. And Jefferson himself advised Americans to revise and rewrite the constitution every twenty years or so to keep people engaged in their own governance.

Thomas Jefferson never said, “every generation needs a new revolution”, but he did say, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing."

He wasn't talking about rewriting the Constitution

When Thomas Jefferson said, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,” he was expressing the idea that a little rebellion is healthy for a democracy and shouldn’t be punished too harshly by the state (it should be punished, as it was illegal, but not too harshly). This was said in a letter that was expressing worry that Shays’ Rebellion would be be used as a reason to justify a conservative Constitution (the letter has him commenting on Shays’ rebellion, the Constitution which is then in draft form, and the British propaganda claiming the colonies where anarchistic).

Likewise, Thomas Jefferson never called for a revolution every generation or a revolution every 19 or 20 years. When Jefferson said, “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion,” he was expressing the idea that “liberties are ensured by the spirit of resistance” and that all great nations had rebellions (again justifying that liberty shouldn’t be sacrificed by conservative worry). He says, “We have had 13 states, independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state.”… so he is arguably justifying a revolution every century and a half more than every 20 years here.