Trump suggests arming teachers & staff could prevent school massacres

originally posted by: Irishhaf
and if nothing else this shooting has shown 1 armed guard on a campus that big is not enough.

So where does the money for those guards come from? Schools can't even afford chalk anymore.

Since this is a conspiracy website, I'll say that I believe it will be a federal grant where Blackwater contracts with the Department of Education to provide troops. Afterall, the heads of those two are brother and sister and are some of the biggest Trump supporters who still want a return on investment.

originally posted by: luthier
This person had already had warning signs of mental illness. Already had warning. You can then get a temporary warrant for surveillance. You can change laws around mental illness and threats of violence.

No, you can't. The ability to hold someone is limited to days. Also, about 20% of Americans have a documented mental illness, if you expand that to undocumented illness it gets closer to 50%. If you really want to stretch, you can find something in the DSM-5 that applies to nearly everyone. Using such a subjective excuse to arbitrarily detain and imprison people is not a good idea. Not only does it go against due process and search and seizure, but it will be used as a way to selectively remove the 2nd amendment.

a reply to: Aazadan

Your post again is meaningless.

First off you can change the law. It's been changed to what it is now correct?

Second you get a warrant of surveillance. You pull his purchase records you follow him. Exacrly what they do for terrorist suspects.

Are you familiar with the supreme court ruling for Obama mass surveillance and phone records etcs. Did you read Snowdens report?

The FBI when they get a credible tip can interview the people who claimed this like they did aND follow him without a warrant.

My guess is they are spread thin and don't have the allocation f resource for school shooters

Ps if you are now talking about the protective order it's temporary. And there would be a pathway to prove your sanity.

a reply to: luthier

Lets say for the sake of argument that your entire post is true. Isn't the point of the 2nd Amendment that it preserves our rights and enables us to be free? Sure sounds like it's failing in that case because everything you outlined is a huge violation of rights that are being sacrificed on the altar of protecting the 2nd.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Aazadan

First off you can change the law.

Speaking of changing laws, you know that is why it is called the 2nd Amendment don't you? Meaning the law can be changed as it has been before.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not really. You are negating due process allowed and that it's already how things work.

How easy can your partner get a protective order for say family violence on you?

Can cops follow you with limit?

If 8 people tell cops you are kidnapping kids and the people are credible witness with no motive for harming you can they sniff you out and watch your habits maybe get a warrant of some kind.

a reply to: Kryties

Sure do. What's the process again....

first they created holographic classroom systems then the alien invasion started

originally posted by: Kryties
Speaking of changing laws, you know that is why it is called the 2nd Amendment don't you? Meaning the law can be changed as it has been before.

Original intent is a big factor in interpreting the law. Sometimes it can change without changing what is written down.

Regardless, I think the most sensible compromise would be to start limiting ammo. Strict controls on a specific number of lethal rounds per year, and only being allowed to purchase such ammo for weapons you can prove you own alongside moving most ammo sales to use things like rubber bullets and bean bag rounds.

This would make guns less lethal without banning them, while still maintaining the home security. We would probably need some sort of specific provision in there for hunting too, possibly involving the purchase of more lethal rounds but only for a limited subset of approved hunting weapons, and some sort of control system that prevents the build up of ammunition stockpiles.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Kryties
Speaking of changing laws, you know that is why it is called the 2nd Amendment don't you? Meaning the law can be changed as it has been before.

Original intent is a big factor in interpreting the law. Sometimes it can change without changing what is written down.

Regardless, I think the most sensible compromise would be to start limiting ammo. Strict controls on a specific number of lethal rounds per year, and only being allowed to purchase such ammo for weapons you can prove you own alongside moving most ammo sales to use things like rubber bullets and bean bag rounds.

This would make guns less lethal without banning them, while still maintaining the home security. We would probably need some sort of specific provision in there for hunting too, possibly involving the purchase of more lethal rounds but only for a limited subset of approved hunting weapons, and some sort of control system that prevents the build up of ammunition stockpiles.

In the context of the 2nd amendment, the word "arms" includes powder and ball (i.e. ammo). That too, is protected from infringement. If you disagree, then by all means begin a campaign to convene a Constitutional Convention and modify/repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is the only LEGAL way to accomplish what you seek without the risk of infringement upon the rights of every citizen.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
In the context of the 2nd amendment, the word "arms" includes powder and ball (i.e. ammo). That too, is protected from infringement. If you disagree, then by all means begin a campaign to convene a Constitutional Convention and modify/repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is the only LEGAL way to accomplish what you seek without the risk of infringement upon the rights of every citizen.

Can you back this up? I'm not aware of any court cases where it has been ruled ammunition falls under the 2nd. Furthermore, Heller reinforces the idea that the 2nd, like all rights is subject to reasonable regulation so long as it doesn't put at risk the basic intent of guns which is for self protection.

The idea I suggested could place strict limits on lethal ammunition, enough that one could keep loaded weapons in their home for an invader or to go hunting, which would satisfy the purpose of the 2nd, but not enough for someone to go on a shooting rampage. It would also still allow for unlimited access to less lethal ammunition, which is still sufficient for self protection but would result in fewer casualties in mass shootings.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krakatoa
In the context of the 2nd amendment, the word "arms" includes powder and ball (i.e. ammo). That too, is protected from infringement. If you disagree, then by all means begin a campaign to convene a Constitutional Convention and modify/repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is the only LEGAL way to accomplish what you seek without the risk of infringement upon the rights of every citizen.

Can you back this up? I'm not aware of any court cases where it has been ruled ammunition falls under the 2nd. Furthermore, Heller reinforces the idea that the 2nd, like all rights is subject to reasonable regulation so long as it doesn't put at risk the basic intent of guns which is for self protection.

The idea I suggested could place strict limits on lethal ammunition, enough that one could keep loaded weapons in their home for an invader or to go hunting, which would satisfy the purpose of the 2nd, but not enough for someone to go on a shooting rampage. It would also still allow for unlimited access to less lethal ammunition, which is still sufficient for self protection but would result in fewer casualties in mass shootings.

At the time, and "arm" was a gun that to fire required black powder and lead ball. Otherwise, it would not fire, and therefore not qualify as a firearm. These two are definitions taken directly from an 18th Century dictionary, published in 1780. A time that was during the AWI and prior to the United States Constitution being drafted.


Source: A General Dictionary of the English Language, One Main Object of Which, Is, to Establish a Plain and Permanent Standard Pronunciation. : To which is Prefixed a Rhetorical Grammar – Thomas Sheridan

There are more references in the annals of the attempt by the British Regulars to seize the arms being stockpiled in Concord, MA (arms including flintlock muskets, cannon, powder, and lead ball). This attempt resulted in the event commonly known as the Battles of Lexington and Concord. To think that the memory of that event and the following war that was the result was no fresh in their minds and the intent to put that into the amendment (which is why it states the generic term "arms" and not firearms or muskets). If you want the exact references, it will take me some time to dig up those particular sources. But I assure you they are there.

originally posted by: lordcomac
I didn't vote for trump, but if you don't believe trained, armed, and willing staff wouldn't put a quick end to a shooting, you're the nut.

He's a nut. He just wants the killing to continue so he can write stupid OP's.
But realistically, when these evil brats realize that their going to get their brains splattered the second they pull a gun on school ground, the sooner this will all stop.

a reply to: Krakatoa

What you just cited are dictionary, not legal definitions. Do you have any court rulings to support your case?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krakatoa

What you just cited are dictionary, not legal definitions. Do you have any court rulings to support your case?

NO, because I am using the period INTENT of the authors of the document (amendment) in question. Do you think the legal system at the time did not use the dictionary definitions in things they were writing? They were not stupid, please do not assume or insinuate they were. All too often I see contemporary people try to interpret that document using modern definitions of the words within, when, word definitions change over time. So, the only way to assure you are interpreting it the same way is to use the same diction tools available to them as well.

The modern legal system is rife with political correctness and partisanship. If you think otherwise, you are misleading yourself. I like to do my own research and find PRIMARY evidence to back up my claims. In this case, that means researching the period of the time the document was drafted and passed.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Legal definitions do not use the same meanings as dictionary definitions. They didn't back then either. Furthermore, there's more than just the constitution on the matter. Several founders wrote extensively on their opinions in order to provide far more nuance, and those writings are cited heavily by the courts in order to determine intent.

As near as I can tell, the courts have never ruled on the idea of whether or not ammo falls under the 2nd, or if it could be restricted in any way. The only real restriction seems to be that weapons which are in common use at the time must be available (but that the government can restrict weapons from being in common use), and that people have access to guns sufficient for self defense and hunting. Ammunition controls would leave all of those points in tact.

MSNBC

According to Israel, Peterson remained outside Building 12 for about four minutes. The shooting lasted about six minutes, he said. When the shooting began the deputy was inside the school handling a matter with a female student.

A review of surveillance video showed that the deputy was in position and armed but never entered the building. He remained stationed outside the building while the shooting went on.

As stated, before the teachers have proven themselves time and time again they are willing to die for the students, so why dont we give them the tools to save the children as quickly as possible.

As for the money, this is where the people of this country need to remind congress and our state legislatures that they work for us, they do not rule over us they are in their positions by our choices.

So if they want to kick the can replace them, stop voting for the familiar name, or "your" party and instead vote for people wanting to actually make a difference!

a reply to: Irishhaf

I just heard about that and two others are under investigation.

originally posted by: lordcomac
I didn't vote for trump, but if you don't believe trained, armed, and willing staff wouldn't put a quick end to a shooting, you're the nut.

The simple idea that staff may be armed would prevent most if not all of these school attacks. These sick people are not looking for a gun fight...

I have not read through all 10 pages of this post yet but I do want to raise a point. If it has been mentioned all ready, please forgive.

Since 2014 school districts in Texas have not only allowed but also post large signs at campuses anouncing that teachers may be armed.

110 school districts are all ready proactively protecting their students.