It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Harrold school district's gun policy violates law, Brady group says
page: 1share:
Harrold school district's gun policy violates law, Brady group says
www.star-telegram.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Attorneys for a Washington, D.C.-based gun-control advocacy group have the tiny school district of Harrold in their sights.
The 110-student district, 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth near Wichita Falls, made international news last week with a new policy that allows teachers to carry handguns if they have a state permit and permission from the district. The move appears to be unprecedented.
But the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says school officials may be violating state law.
As usual, the Anti's are going to be out in force to deny the local school board from acting on they're own to protect students.
www.star-telegram.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
[edit on 8/23/2008 by ZindoDoone]
www.star-telegram.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
[edit on 8/23/2008 by ZindoDoone]
[sarcasm] One must not put the poor mentally ill individuals who target student for slaughter at risk. Only those specially trained in human rights
may apprehend these poor disadvantage people safely. Perhaps those in the advocacy groups should be assigned to guard all schools by placing
themselves between the poor mentally ill gunman and their student targets.[/sarcasm]
When this no gun types put their lives on the line to guard students then I will listen to them. Actions speak louder than words. Perhaps the armed teachers should become part of the "state militia"
When this no gun types put their lives on the line to guard students then I will listen to them. Actions speak louder than words. Perhaps the armed teachers should become part of the "state militia"
reply to post by ZindoDoone
I have to laugh about that. It`s like they don`t want you to be able to protect yourself anymore, and what would they suggest the school do about it? Oh, I know, let`s start a small police force for the school, and give them mace, and let`s see, maybe a billy club, handcuffs and most of all, a 9mm gun. And put their office just across the road from the school, yea, that`s the ticket, and it wouldn`t cost much, just a few thousand dollars of the tax payers money. I know, I`m just ranting, but I get sick of these groups that think they have all the answers, they tell you that you can`t do that, but yet, anything that they propose ends up costing a small fortune to the tax payers.
I have to laugh about that. It`s like they don`t want you to be able to protect yourself anymore, and what would they suggest the school do about it? Oh, I know, let`s start a small police force for the school, and give them mace, and let`s see, maybe a billy club, handcuffs and most of all, a 9mm gun. And put their office just across the road from the school, yea, that`s the ticket, and it wouldn`t cost much, just a few thousand dollars of the tax payers money. I know, I`m just ranting, but I get sick of these groups that think they have all the answers, they tell you that you can`t do that, but yet, anything that they propose ends up costing a small fortune to the tax payers.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Texas criminal law prohibits firearms at schools "unless pursuant to the written regulations or written authorization of the institution."
That is the section of law that Harrold officials cited when discussing the policy.
Brady Center lawyers cite a section of the education code that could cloud the issue.
It reads, "If a board of trustees authorizes a person employed as security personnel to carry a weapon, the person must be a commissioned peace officer."
Cheryl Mehl, an Austin attorney who represents Harrold, said that statute does not apply in this instance.
"It says that’s the case if they are employed as a security personnel," she said. "These are not security personnel. Those are teachers who are just helping to make sure the school is a safer place."
Most Texas school districts have their own police force. It would only make sense if these forces were beefed up a little bit more, as opposed to having teachers patrol the the hallways armed.
One gun in a public school is one to many. I would rather err on the side of caution and have less firearms in school. Less guns equals safer students.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
reply to post by maria_stardust
I hear that. Hell, just get rid of the guns all together, and the likelyhood of a kid getting into his father's home armoury goes down sharply, I'm sure.
There's nothing I dislike more than the idea of a bunch of untrained civilians running around playing army under the title "militia". Don't you have police over there, or something??
I hear that. Hell, just get rid of the guns all together, and the likelyhood of a kid getting into his father's home armoury goes down sharply, I'm sure.
There's nothing I dislike more than the idea of a bunch of untrained civilians running around playing army under the title "militia". Don't you have police over there, or something??
The point is students already are armed. Anything can and has been used as a weapon. Hell, take apart a cell phone. They have real sharp edges.
Pencils, rulers, sharpened screw driver are all lethal tools . Tools and weapons are inanimate objects. They are NOT the problem, its the criminals
and mentaly degraded that misuse them. The fact of the matter is, every one needs to occasionaly protect themselves and not everybody can be Bruce Lee
or wait for the authorities to showup!! To prevent the youngest and most precious of our citizens from becoming targets, we must give them every
protection in todays world. That is the only moral conviction needed!
Zindo
Zindo
reply to post by ZindoDoone
Hence, the need to beef up the school district police forces. Let the people who are trained peace keepers keep the peace. This route is by far the safest, and most logical route to go.
As far as a showdown between a student welding a cell phone and a teacher a gun... Well, that seems to be a little over the top, doesn't it?
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Hence, the need to beef up the school district police forces. Let the people who are trained peace keepers keep the peace. This route is by far the safest, and most logical route to go.
As far as a showdown between a student welding a cell phone and a teacher a gun... Well, that seems to be a little over the top, doesn't it?
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
they aren"t talking about just letting people run about with guns. these teachers will have to be licensed and take gun training classes. sheeesh!
The bill of rights of great, unless you're in a school, or a courtroom, or an airport, or...
reply to post by maria_stardust
This idea of "beefing up" the police force is ridiculous.
1. Just bc someone has a "cop badge" doesn't make them a peacekeeper.
2. If I had to rely on someone to carry a gun onto school property for protecting my boys, I would opt for the teacher that is trained properly over the cop for the simple reason that the teacher has been involved with my son and has developed a bond. The cop just sees another snotty nose, potentially dangerous brat.
3. Raising taxes and arming more men and/or women who will be able to enforce laws that go against the constitution and our rights to call the shots in our life seems more dangerous in the long run than to let some teachers who have been trained properly carry guns to school.
This idea of "beefing up" the police force is ridiculous.
1. Just bc someone has a "cop badge" doesn't make them a peacekeeper.
2. If I had to rely on someone to carry a gun onto school property for protecting my boys, I would opt for the teacher that is trained properly over the cop for the simple reason that the teacher has been involved with my son and has developed a bond. The cop just sees another snotty nose, potentially dangerous brat.
3. Raising taxes and arming more men and/or women who will be able to enforce laws that go against the constitution and our rights to call the shots in our life seems more dangerous in the long run than to let some teachers who have been trained properly carry guns to school.
reply to post by justamomma
Teachers are stretched out thin enough as it is now days. In addition to educating our children, they are role models, counselors, mediators and mentors. They put together lesson plans, many times teach multiple subjects, grade papers, give tests, mete discipline, dry tears and provide a sympathetic ear. And that, my friend, is just the tip of the iceberg. They are great multi-taskers because their jobs demand it.
But has it ever occurred to you, that perhaps their plates are overflowing as it currently stands. Don't you think that our educators put up with a bit more job stress than the average Joe. However, our teachers deal with this kind of pressure each and everyday of the school year. A lesser person would crack under such duress.
The point is, teachers are only human, and humans can only handle so much. They aren't superhuman. They can snap just like anyone else. Perhaps even more so, considering the constant stress they're under performing their duties. Now you have the audacity to suggest they arm themselves!?!
As it stands, teachers don't earn enough respect or pay. Now you want them to play cops. Truth is there will be very few students and parents who will feel safer knowing that teachers are roaming the school corridors packing heat. If anything, it will probably instill an undue level of suspicion and fear, as opposed to building trust and goodwill.
And for what, I ask you. To pacify a small minority of gun enthusiasts who will go to any length to broaden the reach of the Second Amendment.
It saddens me to see that there are people who have such a blatant disrespect for our law enforcement officers. So much so, that they are willing to create school-oriented militias, as opposed to trusting those who are properly trained to serve and protect us.
What kind of message do you suppose that sends out to our children?
The wrong one.
Let the teachers teach, and the peacekeepers keep the peace.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Teachers are stretched out thin enough as it is now days. In addition to educating our children, they are role models, counselors, mediators and mentors. They put together lesson plans, many times teach multiple subjects, grade papers, give tests, mete discipline, dry tears and provide a sympathetic ear. And that, my friend, is just the tip of the iceberg. They are great multi-taskers because their jobs demand it.
But has it ever occurred to you, that perhaps their plates are overflowing as it currently stands. Don't you think that our educators put up with a bit more job stress than the average Joe. However, our teachers deal with this kind of pressure each and everyday of the school year. A lesser person would crack under such duress.
The point is, teachers are only human, and humans can only handle so much. They aren't superhuman. They can snap just like anyone else. Perhaps even more so, considering the constant stress they're under performing their duties. Now you have the audacity to suggest they arm themselves!?!
As it stands, teachers don't earn enough respect or pay. Now you want them to play cops. Truth is there will be very few students and parents who will feel safer knowing that teachers are roaming the school corridors packing heat. If anything, it will probably instill an undue level of suspicion and fear, as opposed to building trust and goodwill.
And for what, I ask you. To pacify a small minority of gun enthusiasts who will go to any length to broaden the reach of the Second Amendment.
It saddens me to see that there are people who have such a blatant disrespect for our law enforcement officers. So much so, that they are willing to create school-oriented militias, as opposed to trusting those who are properly trained to serve and protect us.
What kind of message do you suppose that sends out to our children?
The wrong one.
Let the teachers teach, and the peacekeepers keep the peace.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by maria_stardustTeachers are stretched out thin enough as it is now days. In addition to educating our children, they are role models, counselors, mediators and mentors. They put together lesson plans, many times teach multiple subjects, grade papers, give tests, mete discipline, dry tears and provide a sympathetic ear. And that, my friend, is just the tip of the iceberg. They are great multi-taskers because their jobs demand it.
Agreed.. At the school that my boys attend, the parents volunteer ferociously to help ease their load. We take turns coming to read with the children, organize the parties and help during the parties, bring nice lunches to them, basically involve ourselves with our kids and their teachers rather than looking to outside sources to come in and do it.
But has it ever occurred to you, that perhaps their plates are overflowing as it currently stands. Don't you think that our educators put up with a bit more job stress than the average Joe. However, our teachers deal with this kind of pressure each and everyday of the school year. A lesser person would crack under such duress.
It has occurred to me. My mother was a teacher and so I am fully aware of how much goes into being a teacher. Because THEY have made this choice to teach my children, I have made the choice to make sure that I am actively helping out where I can rather than just being aware of it.
The point is, teachers are only human, and humans can only handle so much. They aren't superhuman. They can snap just like anyone else. Perhaps even more so, considering the constant stress they're under performing their duties. Now you have the audacity to suggest they arm themselves!?!
Just as cops can and have. They are only human too.. And being a human who signed up for the job most likely for reasons other than being assigned security guard at a school with a bunch of loudmouthed punks, you don't think they would be capable of snapping as well? How embarrassing, don't you think? And I have seen a lot of ridiculous displays of authority from cops toward children.
As it stands, teachers don't earn enough respect or pay. Now you want them to play cops. Truth is there will be very few students and parents who will feel safer knowing that teachers are roaming the school corridors packing heat. If anything, it will probably instill an undue level of suspicion and fear, as opposed to building trust and goodwill.
And having cops walking up and down the halls will help to instill trust and goodwill? If anything, it will make the teachers and students feel like they are in prison. I can't imagine having gone to a school where cops were stationed around the campus. I wouldn't feel so much protected as I would feel monitored.
And for what, I ask you. To pacify a small minority of gun enthusiasts who will go to any length to broaden the reach of the Second Amendment.
Since the 2nd Ammendment came without stipulations, I don't see how it really should be in need of being broadened. And can we quit calling them gun enthusiasts and maybe opt for the truth to displayed... protection enthusiasts would probably be a better label if one is even needed.
It saddens me to see that there are people who have such a blatant disrespect for our law enforcement officers. So much so, that they are willing to create school-oriented militias, as opposed to trusting those who are properly trained to serve and protect us.
It saddens *me* to see so many who are more willing to hand over not only their rights, but other's rights as well in favor of security (or the *appearance* of security ~ as it really is).
What kind of message do you suppose that sends out to our children?
The wrong one.
Wrong as opposed to the message of personal responsibility? How is it right to put kids in a prison like enviroment? If trained teachers were allowed their right, the fact that they have means of protection would not be something that would be in the kids' faces every day. It would be there *in case*. What message are we sending them by having armed cops in their faces every day? That they are being treated like criminals rather than students.
Let the teachers teach, and the peacekeepers keep the peace.
Teachers that have the means of protection for both themselves and the students in their care are not uncapable of teaching.
YOu are speaking as though they will have their gun poised and in the face of each student during school hours rather than doing their job. I highly doubt this would be the case and find it laughable that you would assume they couldn't teach and focus on teaching if they had a means of protection close by and out of sight.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by justamomma
Agreed.. At the school that my boys attend, the parents volunteer ferociously to help ease their load. We take turns coming to read with the children, organize the parties and help during the parties, bring nice lunches to them, basically involve ourselves with our kids and their teachers rather than looking to outside sources to come in and do it
I'm glad to see that you show up to your child's class and help out on occassion. So do I. Here's a little pat on the shoulder for you.
The fact remains, that no matter how much parent volunteers help host parties and read stories and chaperone field trips, teachers still have a hell of a lot to contend with. That doesn't change. Teachers are hired to teach, not be hired guns.
Just as cops can and have. They are only human too.. And being a human who signed up for the job most likely for reasons other than being assigned security guard at a school with a bunch of loudmouthed punks, you don't think they would be capable of snapping as well? How embarrassing, don't you think? And I have seen a lot of ridiculous displays of authority from cops toward children.
And having cops walking up and down the halls will help to instill trust and goodwill? If anything, it will make the teachers and students feel like they are in prison. I can't imagine having gone to a school where cops were stationed around the campus. I wouldn't feel so much protected as I would feel monitored.
It is obvious you have issues with authority figures, much less armed authority figures. The irony of this is that teachers are considered authority figures, as well. Interesting, indeed.
I also find it interesting that you refer to some school children as "loud mouthed punks," that armed teachers would be more adept at handling than trained law enforcement officers.
It's also funny, you should compare school law enforcement officers to prison guards. By your skewed logic, transferring fire arms from police to teachers some how makes this analogy disappear. But, it doesn't. The guards are merely changing uniform. It will still be a prison. Talk about embarrassing.
Since the 2nd Ammendment came without stipulations, I don't see how it really should be in need of being broadened. And can we quit calling them gun enthusiasts and maybe opt for the truth to displayed... protection enthusiasts would probably be a better label if one is even needed.
It saddens *me* to see so many who are more willing to hand over not only their rights, but other's rights as well in favor of security (or the *appearance* of security ~ as it really is).
Now you're not making any sense. No one is alluding to giving up any rights. Are you sure you're not confusing this thread with another?
As far as security goes, I would trust a trained law enforcement officer to handle a gun more responsibly any day, than I would an average citizen. Why? Because they, by and large, have more extensive and intensive training in handling firearms as part of their job.
You may not care for law enforcement, but they play a vital role in protecting society at large. And, it's a damn better alternative than having the military or armed militias and vigilantes running the streets to fill the void in their abscence.
Wrong as opposed to the message of personal responsibility? How is it right to put kids in a prison like enviroment? If trained teachers were allowed their right, the fact that they have means of protection would not be something that would be in the kids' faces every day. It would be there *in case*. What message are we sending them by having armed cops in their faces every day? That they are being treated like criminals rather than students.
In your book, armed law enforcement officers = armed prison guards. How is arming teachers any different? It isn't. Armed school teachers will still play into the illusion that students are to be treated as potential criminals. The prison analogy still stands.
Also, how does arming teachers equate to personal responsibility? It doesn't. You're just typing fluff now.
Teachers that have the means of protection for both themselves and the students in their care are not uncapable of teaching.
YOu are speaking as though they will have their gun poised and in the face of each student during school hours rather than doing their job. I highly doubt this would be the case and find it laughable that you would assume they couldn't teach and focus on teaching if they had a means of protection close by and out of sight.
I have never argued that armed teachers are incapable of doing their jobs properly. You're making baseless assumptions.
My entire stance regarding school security has been to invest in more school law enforcement officers. Handling security issues is what they do best.
By the same token, teachers should stick to teaching, as that is what they do best.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
I wouldn't say that I have problem with authority so much as I have a problem with authority being able to have access to weapons anywhere at anytime
when I am not allowed the same right.
The second Amendment states:
“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.”
For some reason, maybe because of how it is worded (?), ppl seem to have a pretty hard time grasping what this means. But it is actually cleverly worded bc it leaves little room to be argued with.
Notice that it says "the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be infringed." There are no stipulations on where they can keep and bear arms. There are no stipulations on which people can keep and bear arms.
So, if an officer can carry a gun onto school property, a teacher (especially one that has been trained in proper handling) not only should have that right, but DESERVES that right.... as do the parents.
It was put in there for the intent of giving the *people* the right to be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime.
The framers of the document listing our rights were intelligent ppl. They had a great grasp of language. If they had intended for the meaning to be something else, they would have worded it to say their intent.
Some ppl will argue saying that it means that an organized militia can only carry weapons (which I have actually heard this arguement to support why cops should be allowed to have weapons but not the ppl, although I disagree that cops = a militia). If this were the case, then they would have said "the right of a well organized militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The word "people" maintains the same meaning, "individuals" throughout the bill of rights. Again, these were intelligent men. They were not some idiots who weren't aware of what they were writing and how they were writing it.
You can call me screwed up in my logic and you can call me crazy for supporting the idea. I adhere to the documents as they were written and given to us regardless. If any one *can* walk into a school armed, be it a crazed gun man off the street or police officer protecting the students, the teachers have a right to keep and bear arms.
Your opinion is an opinion that, if we were following what was laid out by our founding fathers as it was given to us, should hold no bearing on their right to keep and bear arms period.
The authors had far greater wisdom and understanding than ppl give them credit for.
[edit on 24-8-2008 by justamomma]
The second Amendment states:
“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.”
For some reason, maybe because of how it is worded (?), ppl seem to have a pretty hard time grasping what this means. But it is actually cleverly worded bc it leaves little room to be argued with.
Notice that it says "the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be infringed." There are no stipulations on where they can keep and bear arms. There are no stipulations on which people can keep and bear arms.
So, if an officer can carry a gun onto school property, a teacher (especially one that has been trained in proper handling) not only should have that right, but DESERVES that right.... as do the parents.
It was put in there for the intent of giving the *people* the right to be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime.
The framers of the document listing our rights were intelligent ppl. They had a great grasp of language. If they had intended for the meaning to be something else, they would have worded it to say their intent.
Some ppl will argue saying that it means that an organized militia can only carry weapons (which I have actually heard this arguement to support why cops should be allowed to have weapons but not the ppl, although I disagree that cops = a militia). If this were the case, then they would have said "the right of a well organized militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The word "people" maintains the same meaning, "individuals" throughout the bill of rights. Again, these were intelligent men. They were not some idiots who weren't aware of what they were writing and how they were writing it.
You can call me screwed up in my logic and you can call me crazy for supporting the idea. I adhere to the documents as they were written and given to us regardless. If any one *can* walk into a school armed, be it a crazed gun man off the street or police officer protecting the students, the teachers have a right to keep and bear arms.
Your opinion is an opinion that, if we were following what was laid out by our founding fathers as it was given to us, should hold no bearing on their right to keep and bear arms period.
The authors had far greater wisdom and understanding than ppl give them credit for.
[edit on 24-8-2008 by justamomma]
I don`t believe teachers will be forced to carry guns, and I do believe it will be left up to the teachers themselves if they would want to do this or
not.
I find that this talk about guns and the fear of them is very strange. I for one if drawn into the argument about guns, could say the same thing about knives or even cars, how about baseball bats or anything that could cause a death to a loved one. What the real fight should be about, is not the weapon, but the one who is using it to cause harm or death to others. Sure, you can take away one of our Consitutional rights by taking away guns. But where will it stop after that? Outlaw cars? Outlaw everything that can or may bring harm or death to others? You see, it`s a never ending fight.
How many people out there, who want guns taken away drive cars, have a baseball bat in their garage, have knives in their silverware drawer? Must we take these things away from you? No, I don`t believe so, no more then we need to take guns away from others. If someone was out to harm you, and couldn`t get a gun, believe me, they will find something else to use if that was their goal. Remember, it`s not the weapon you need to fear, it`s the person who is going to use it that you need to fear.
justamomma, a star for you, very well put.
[edit on 24-8-2008 by FiatLux]
I find that this talk about guns and the fear of them is very strange. I for one if drawn into the argument about guns, could say the same thing about knives or even cars, how about baseball bats or anything that could cause a death to a loved one. What the real fight should be about, is not the weapon, but the one who is using it to cause harm or death to others. Sure, you can take away one of our Consitutional rights by taking away guns. But where will it stop after that? Outlaw cars? Outlaw everything that can or may bring harm or death to others? You see, it`s a never ending fight.
How many people out there, who want guns taken away drive cars, have a baseball bat in their garage, have knives in their silverware drawer? Must we take these things away from you? No, I don`t believe so, no more then we need to take guns away from others. If someone was out to harm you, and couldn`t get a gun, believe me, they will find something else to use if that was their goal. Remember, it`s not the weapon you need to fear, it`s the person who is going to use it that you need to fear.
justamomma, a star for you, very well put.
[edit on 24-8-2008 by FiatLux]
reply to post by maria_stardust
Sorry, maria, I do not agree with you at all.
Firstly, your use of the word "security" makes me balk; THERE IS NO SUCH THING!
Secondly, police are abusers of their au6th6or6ity every day! So when
you cast them as the ultimate peace keepers, you are being naive, in my
opinion.
People kill eachother. Fact.
A very sad fact, as my beautiful young cousin, Bridgett Ann DeCleene was
stalked, abducted at GUNpoint, held against her will overnight;
Think about that...(by a 'man' who was extremely attracted to her) . . .
Then SHOT to death! Afterwards, this 'man' set his place on fire, and shot
himself to death!
I think guns should either be removed from the face of the earth; OR- we
ALL get to carry them.
One or the other.
Sorry, didn't mean to be a jerk to you, maria, at all. Just feeling very
unsure, and aggrevated at the inneffectiveness of au6th6or6ities at
preventing murder.
Please understand my intense personal feelings on this matter, I am
inclined to support ANYONE willing to carry guns, for the express purpose
of preventing another single murder by a gun-toting indivdual bent on
killing other innocent people; LEGALLY LICENSED OR NOT!
[edit on 8/24/2008 by FRIGHTENER]
Sorry, maria, I do not agree with you at all.
Firstly, your use of the word "security" makes me balk; THERE IS NO SUCH THING!
Secondly, police are abusers of their au6th6or6ity every day! So when
you cast them as the ultimate peace keepers, you are being naive, in my
opinion.
People kill eachother. Fact.
A very sad fact, as my beautiful young cousin, Bridgett Ann DeCleene was
stalked, abducted at GUNpoint, held against her will overnight;
Think about that...(by a 'man' who was extremely attracted to her) . . .
Then SHOT to death! Afterwards, this 'man' set his place on fire, and shot
himself to death!
I think guns should either be removed from the face of the earth; OR- we
ALL get to carry them.
One or the other.
Sorry, didn't mean to be a jerk to you, maria, at all. Just feeling very
unsure, and aggrevated at the inneffectiveness of au6th6or6ities at
preventing murder.
Please understand my intense personal feelings on this matter, I am
inclined to support ANYONE willing to carry guns, for the express purpose
of preventing another single murder by a gun-toting indivdual bent on
killing other innocent people; LEGALLY LICENSED OR NOT!
[edit on 8/24/2008 by FRIGHTENER]
People who feel that they're security and that of they're families and friends are the duty of others is sadly mistaken. Reality will bite you in
the butt real fast with that attitute. You are setting yourself and those you love up as victims. The crazies are out there. Our great and powerfull
'Civil Liberties Union' has worked along with other groups to insure that those with dangerous mental problems are not being monitored to keep them
from harming themselves and others. They are loose and alowed to foment they're mania and plan the criminal acts that they're warped psychi invents.
Inteligent maniacs can only be handled by those that can protect themselves. We are they're prey and to be rabbits instead of men and women, let this
circle of violence persist. Untill we as a people tell those that keep drilling into us that we are not able to protect our loved ones in the maner
needed to shut up and mind they're own business ,we will be prey..not citizens!!
Zindo
[edit on 8/24/2008 by ZindoDoone]
Zindo
[edit on 8/24/2008 by ZindoDoone]
Being Canadian, I don't know American law too well, but doesn't the second amendment state that the pourpose of the right to bear armes is to
provide a milita of the people? Using that as a legal basis, it is actually unconsitusional to overturn the school board's desision on this matter.
Therefore, and I can't belive I'm typing this, let them have guns!
Militias are the people. No standing Army can or should be considered a militia. The latest from our SCOTUS states it to mean the people as
individuals, not a state or government organization. Your right about the law and how it should be aplied here.
Zindo
Zindo
new topics
-
Sunak spinning the sickness figures
Other Current Events: 11 minutes ago -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues: 22 minutes ago -
Late Night with the Devil - a really good unusual modern horror film.
Movies: 2 hours ago -
Cats Used as Live Bait to Train Ferocious Pitbulls in Illegal NYC Dogfighting
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago -
The Good News According to Jesus - Episode 1
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 5 hours ago -
HORRIBLE !! Russian Soldier Drinking Own Urine To Survive In Battle
World War Three: 7 hours ago -
Bobiverse
Fantasy & Science Fiction: 10 hours ago -
Florida man's trip overseas ends in shock over $143,000 T-Mobile phone bill
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Florida man's trip overseas ends in shock over $143,000 T-Mobile phone bill
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago, 8 flags -
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have'
Aliens and UFOs: 14 hours ago, 7 flags -
Cats Used as Live Bait to Train Ferocious Pitbulls in Illegal NYC Dogfighting
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago, 7 flags -
This is our Story
General Entertainment: 17 hours ago, 4 flags -
Former Labour minister Frank Field dies aged 81
People: 12 hours ago, 4 flags -
Bobiverse
Fantasy & Science Fiction: 10 hours ago, 3 flags -
Late Night with the Devil - a really good unusual modern horror film.
Movies: 2 hours ago, 2 flags -
HORRIBLE !! Russian Soldier Drinking Own Urine To Survive In Battle
World War Three: 7 hours ago, 2 flags -
The Good News According to Jesus - Episode 1
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 5 hours ago, 0 flags -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues: 22 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections • 106 • : ImagoDei -
Truth Social goes public, be careful not to lose your money
Mainstream News • 124 • : lilzazz -
British TV Presenter Refuses To Use Guest's Preferred Pronouns
Education and Media • 145 • : Annee -
Nearly 70% Of Americans Want Talks To End War In Ukraine
Political Issues • 2 • : Consvoli -
Sunak spinning the sickness figures
Other Current Events • 0 • : annonentity -
Cats Used as Live Bait to Train Ferocious Pitbulls in Illegal NYC Dogfighting
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 9 • : ImagoDei -
Late Night with the Devil - a really good unusual modern horror film.
Movies • 3 • : Hecate666 -
HORRIBLE !! Russian Soldier Drinking Own Urine To Survive In Battle
World War Three • 23 • : Disgusted123 -
Hi folks I'm Leon Grad
Introductions • 9 • : leongrad -
The Reality of the Laser
Military Projects • 41 • : 5thHead