Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NRA wants armed guards in schools

page: 39
22
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JTreader
 


All I can say is, if God has a problem with me putting a bullet in a person trying to kill a child I don't want anything to do with him. If he would rather me lay down and die than fight for the life of my family or to defend myself, he isn't a god of mine.

Jesus came to other with the purpose of giving his life. I have a child that needs me to provide protection, guidance, education, food, shelter, and clothing. There is a big difference between what was expected of Jesus and what is expected of me.




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JTreader
What would Jesus say to the NRA?

Here is an article for your consideration. I bring it up as a discussion starter, not because I endorse or do not endorse all that it says.

Quoting: "From his birth in the manger as a homeless refugee until his brutal execution on the Roman cross, Jesus was very familiar with violence. Emmanuel means “God with us.” Jesus’s coming to earth is all about a God who leaves the comfort of heaven to join the suffering on earth. The fact that Christians throughout the world regularly identify with a victim of violence – and a nonviolent, grace-filled, forgiving victim – is perhaps one of the most fundamentally life-altering and world-changing assumptions of the Christian faith. Or it should be. So what does that have to do with the NRA?......"

www.redletterchristians.org...

So what are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading my post.


I agree 1,000%!!!

And, as soon as we have utilized the author's plan to "rid evil from the world, once and for all", I will gladly, and with great cheer, surrender all of my arms!
I look forward to this day! But, in the meantime, I will use my weapons as I intended them to be used. So that I can reduce the likelyhood of ever needing to use them!



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Are you ready to join the rest of us in reality in recognizing that something must be done about mass shootings?

Or are you clinging to that paranoid, dystopian vision of the U.S?



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


My wife is all for it, not to mention the entire staff at her Elementary School. The school system has been sued again and again by parents to have there severely mentally challenged kids to attended regular classes.

I quote my wife, " it's these irresponsible parents getting lawyers to sue for approval to have there severely mentally challenged kids put in regular classrooms, this has got to stop " "my friend now has a broken arm . My classroom is not for lab testing because some psychologist wants to be published. "

My wife worries about the older family members of the little kids more than anything else, because sometimes these parents and relatives have the same diagnosis as there kids. She had mentioned there are a few like that at her school and must be escorted ,the list of mentally challenged kids is increasing yearly as well.. So far about 15 kids have been hurt by the challenged kids this year. All required medical attention at a hospital.

So far this year's events at her school.

Parents of some kid caught stealing. Father turned out to be armed and caught that same day holding up a 7-11. The only reason they knew he was at the school , is that school property was found in the truck the same day it was reported missing from the school.

Home near school had armed fellon, barricades himself in home. Escape and ends up at the school, police caught him in the playground. School went into lock down after he was caught. So much for the police. Lucky no kids were on the playground.

Parents fist fighting in hall way. No weapons.

This list goes on and on.




edit on 26-12-2012 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-12-2012 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-12-2012 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SJE98
reply to post by watchitburn
 


My wife is all for it, not to mention the entire staff at her Elementary School. The school system has been sued again and again by parents to have there severely mentally challenged kids to attended regular classes.

I quote my wife, " it's these irresponsible parents getting lawyers to sue for approval to have there severely mentally challenged kids put in regular classrooms, this has got to stop " "my friend now has a broken arm . My classroom is not for lab testing because some psychologist wants to be published. "

My wife worries about the older family members of the little kids more than anything else, because sometimes these parents and relatives have the same diagnosis as there kids. She had mentioned there are a few like that at her school and must be escorted ,the list of mentally challenged kids is increasing yearly as well.. So far about 15 kids have been hurt by the challenged kids this year. All required medical attention at a hospital.

So far this year's events at her school.

Parents of some kid caught stealing. Father turned out to be armed and caught that same day holding up a 7-11. The only reason they knew he was at the school , is that school property was found in the truck the same day it was reported missing from the school.

Home near school had armed fellon, barricades himself in home. Escape and ends up at the school, police caught him in the playground. School went into lock down after he was caught. So much for the police. Lucky no kids were on the playground.

Parents fist fighting in hall way. No weapons.

This list goes on and on.


Unfortunatly there are alot of people on this site who have no experience with the school systems and problems the staff and kids deal with everyday. I find it strange that people with no kids are pushing their views so hard on this issue. While I agree that big government in any way is bad and that government protecting us is a joke, they protect themselves. We should have a right as parents to decide how our kids are protected. I again feel that a resource officer in the school is not a bad thing yes theres bigger problems behind these mass killings but the kids need protection now. I also feel that mixing kids on different levels or worse kids with psychological disorders is a detriment to both the learning and safety of the classroom. Its kind of common sence. My wife is an ELL specialist and you cant throw one of these kids in a general classroom, its not fair to him or the other students, you need division and you need specialists.Teachers should not be responsible for protection and teaching they have alot on their plate as it is. That is unless the teacher wants to and they have had extensive training in doing so.

Just my 2 cents.

Bill



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Are you ready to join the rest of us in reality in recognizing that something must be done about mass shootings?

Or are you clinging to that paranoid, dystopian vision of the U.S?


No, no.. oh, no, no, no, no, no.

You don't get to talk to ME about dystopia, friend. I don't live in the world of "everyone is out to get me!" and "The Gubment did 9/11". You aren't allowed to talk to me like I am one of the people that think everyone is an actor and lizard people steal my donuts when I sleep.

I am a rational human being.

Someone in this thread was talking about revolt and the 2nd amendment. I clearly asked him if he were ready to be a criminal if the 2nd was repealed. He readily admitted that he would, and after that you lose credibility with me, because you can't both respect the constitution when it suits you, and then when it is legally changed, decide you are above it.

I'm not one of these people claiming that this is a good idea. I mean, seriously. People in this thread are claiming that adding 100,000 armed government officers (conservative estimate, this is only one per school.) and expanding the size of government to maintain these officers somehow fits into their also absurd view of "Fiscal Responsibility" and doesn't at all impact what they claim to be a "Nanny State". Really? Adding 100,000 armed officers isn't helping to usher in this nanny state you are all so worried about?

Something needs to be done about school shootings. Banning assault weapons isn't the answer. I firmly believe that banning all personally owned firearms IS the answer. Removing guns removes the danger that they present. Even in the States. Evidence exists to that end. It isn't even debatable at this point and yet people continue to try.

I offer no dystopia. I am not as worried as all of that. Frankly, I think the second amendment is going to be repealed and that a LOT of guns are going to be "stolen" before they are forced to give them up. I think a lot of those guns will eventually "turn up", and that for a few decades you will hear common stories about people accidentally shot when messing with an illegal gun. Those stories will begin to fade as the love affair with guns does as well. Gun crime will diminish after a while as well. When penalties far outweigh benefits, even possessing a gun could be enough to get you tossed into prison for a while, let alone being caught buying or selling one. Business would dry up quickly as all of the small time players get out of the game. Who is left? Organized Crime. Organized Crime will control all gun trafficking not controlled by government forces (not neccassarily our own). They will strictly control who has weapons and who doesn't, because if they are the only source of weapons, it makes weapons very valuable on the secondary markets.

So, guns become more expensive. With their expense, increased criminal prosecution, and obvious nature, owning a gun illegally becomes even harder to do than it was when the 2nd was still on the books. People start to use other weapons, shanks, knives, and clubs have been standards for years before the gun came around, and have picked up in popularity since the UK gun ban.

The advantage is that someone could go crazy with.. say a knife.. stab a bunch of people and no one dies. This happened just the other day. One guy walks in with a gun and kills a bunch of kids. Another guy walks in with a knife and doesn't kill a single one. These aren't isolated incidents either. Violence happens. Gun violence is more lethal than non-gun violence.

I've got a lot more to say about this 'dystopian' future where everyone is awesome. It's kind of my thing, but I will save it for another thread.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Your numbers are pretty far off because at least half of the schools already have armed security. Almost all inner city has had armed guards for decades.

Aside from that you are talking about something you can’t put a price tag on which are well worth protecting. Our children’s lives.

Australia is a good example to look at for what would happen if guns were banned. After the first year of banning firearms crime rose to nearly double 47% I believe. I for one am not willing to give free rein to criminals. Today Australia’s crime rate is much higher violent crime and home burglaries including home invasions. Their murder rate has stayed the same.

Side not in Australia you can’t even own a BB gun or slingshot. Their laws have done nothing to help the problem.

In America we loosened Concealed carry laws and crime across the board including murder has dropped significantly over 30%.


Australia does not even have the logistical problems we have like being bordered to Mexico. Weapon bans have been proven to be an epic fail in history. It simply isn’t worth it. It isn’t the intelligent thing to do.
edit on 26-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Your numbers are pretty far off because at least half of the schools already have armed security. Almost all inner city has had armed guards for decades.

Aside from that you are talking about something you can’t put a price tag on which are well worth protecting. Our children’s lives.

Australia is a good example to look at for what would happen if guns were banned. After the first year of banning firearms crime rose to nearly double 47% I believe. I for one am not willing to give free rein to criminals. Today Australia’s crime rate is much higher violent crime and home burglaries including home invasions. Their murder rate has stayed the same.

Side not in Australia you can’t even own a BB gun or slingshot. Their laws have done nothing to help the problem.

In America we loosened Concealed carry laws and crime across the board including murder has dropped significantly over 30%.


Australia does not even have the logistical problems we have like being bordered to Mexico. Weapon bans have been proven to be an epic fail in history. It simply isn’t worth it. It isn’t the intelligent thing to do.
edit on 26-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


You're numbers are inaccurate and your logic is flawed. If "half" of our schools already had armed guards, the NRA's solution would not be as newsworthy as the sound bite has played out. It wouldn't be that big a deal, and their effectiveness could be tracked. That isn't the case.

In America, in the states with the strictest gun laws, gun crime is at modern European levels. In states with the loosest gun laws, gun deaths outweigh automobile deaths.

Australia is ridiculously safer than the United States in virtually all aspects, INCLUDING "alternative weapon" attacks. Like I had suggested would be the case in the states, Gun crime would bump for a moment, and then it would drop off of the radar. Just like Australia.



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Sorry but I looked up the numbers for Australia those numbers are correct.

Maybe you should look at the murder rates in DC then tell me strict gun laws are great. The towns in the US that have rules requiring citizens to be armed are the safest towns.

Murder is murder regardless of how it was carried out can you agree to that?



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


Sorry but I looked up the numbers for Australia those numbers are correct.

Maybe you should look at the murder rates in DC then tell me strict gun laws are great. The towns in the US that have rules requiring citizens to be armed are the safest towns.

Murder is murder regardless of how it was carried out can you agree to that?


Your numbers for Australia are wrong according to World Book 2012. Would love to know the source of YOUR numbers.

Kennessaw, GA. That town in the US that arms everyone. Guess what, they have nearly identical crime rates as many other towns of the same size and socioeconomic forecast. Small towns have less murder. You know what Kennessaw has that many MANY other towns like it don't have? A school shooting. Oh.. yeah, Kennessaw, GA had a school shooting. Your "Gun Mecca" is home to a school shooting. I guess all of the guns couldn't stop someone from shooting up the school anyway.

Murder is murder, but the lethality of gun violence is far greater than the lethality of other common forms of violence.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SJE98
 


You have to do it local and if they sue it is a shame but there are people out there that will defend that right for free. I am doing it in my sons school. Went to city council meeting to let them know my intentions publicly. Before the meeting I talked with the Chief of Police of this town to see if he felt it was the right forum and I asked about safety. He told me about the 2 SRO's at the local high school and I waited...he continued with the middle and spec-ed/fundamental schools have one...I waited. He then said, well, we have an officer drive by the elementary school...and he kind of stopped. We talked for a bit more about the how's if they will help and he did. Then went to the principal of the school. Talked to him and he said a few others as well as teachers were behind it and now it is at the school board level.

It is awesome you tried but do not stop and if you have not be a voice. The NRA does not want armed guards, it wants a template.

video

If you watch it you will see that. So if you do not want armed guards then you will need to spend more on the security getting in and out and if it is a pain in the arse for you well choose one. If no guns then video and biometrics. People log into work and track their time so why not for security. People who complain are like children so like kids, give them a choice but they are both ones you created.

This is the site we created to get attention for my sons school. This week endorsements from a local CWP facility as well as some other shops to provide logistical support for the people in the schools and local law enforcement. It can be done people. There is another jerk off out there waiting....

site for local school



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Just getting the kids use to prison right where profit fiends want them. They will keep add police until it's the south park episode where there is police knocking on your door giving you tickets for what you do in your house. The sad thing is people think this is a good idea. People just need to stop being scared of other people and death. Tomorrow I could hit the lottery if I played or get killed by a crazy man behind me for a few dollars. Such as it was thousands of year ago and will be years in the future. Now think of this people DO YOU REALLY want to agree that we NEED armed guards in schools. These guards are just the start. They used kids so we will ACCEPT more policing but in reality they wont stop at schools it's just the first brick in the pyramid



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

As I read it, this would mean that any “assault weapon” would have to be registered as a class III NFA weapon with a $200 tax stamp, with perhaps the same applying to any magazine of 11 rounds or more. Talk about overreach. Maybe this is their response to the deficit? Ten million or firearms alone registered at $200 each pays for more universal health care. Never-mind if they require registering all those magazines. Question: Under her proposed law, when I die, am I unable to leave my listed weapon(s) to my kids? Would that fall under the ban on transfer of the weapon after the exempted owner is deceased? Seems to me that according to this proposal once you die, your firearms will be turned in for destruction. In one generation they will have a near complete gun ban. The registration would just be a bonus for them to make it easier for them to prevent guns from slipping through the cracks. They will give up some items in this proposal but they will not give up the transfer ban. That’s the key part of the anti’s long term strategy. The potential financial/employment impact of what would essentially be disarmament within a generation or so is huge. The gun haters say “screw those gun people, it’s their problem” but the reality is that it would put so many people out of work it’s frightening. Not only do you have the firearms companies themselves but also the accessories manufacturers, the tool/die folks who make mold, the machinists doing rough/finish work, casting foundries, back office/admin staff, IT staff, gun stores & their staff, etc. Another industry dead due to more government regulation. Get in touch with your representative and fight! The anti’s are not taking this sitting down and neither should we, something is going to happen, and it’s up to ourselves to make that something! FYI: Here are the phone numbers for the US Senate and House switchboards. CALL your Congressmen and CALL your Senators. Do not write a letter. Do not e-mail. Those methods of communication are too easily ignored. The numbers are 202-224-3121 for the Senate; 202-224-3121 for the House. CALL THEM and let them know just how strongly you oppose this. But–and I cannot stress this enough -- DO NOT BE ANGRY. Be polite. Be courteous. There’s no reason to be a jerk to whoever it is, especially if you want his help. Be firm, yes–make it very clear what you want him to do -- but don’t be rude.
finestines ban list is out and it looks and smells like a tax scheme to get gun owners to fund the budget by trying to treat all guns under the new ban as NFA fire arms and tax them and each mag capible of holding more then 10 rounds at 200 a pop.....imagine all the money they are gonna try to get out of this....www.shootingtomatoes.com... source for above text and www.ijreview.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Not armed and uniformed. Armed and dressed like a teacher. Like an Air Marshall. Yup, they are on there.

There is security at Wal-Mart, McDonalds, High schools...until this I would have never imagined that I would have to make that decision but if it takes that to deter the threat like the shooter in Newtown passed a high school where he was bullied...right? why not go there..oh, armed guard ok let me go somewhere that is a soft target....

I wish it was and grew up in the Leave it to Beaver/Brady Bunch era. There has however always been and always will be crazy. There are more people and more poor influence so guess what. More crazy people. Do we lock them up? Take away guns? No, we look at what is most vulnerable right now. If someone attacked the school with a samurai sword...2 and it is done with a person in the office and on grounds. Timothy McVeigh did not use guns and he killed kids too....

The majority of the nation, almost 58% are for armed schools. That is more decisive than the last election.
edit on 27-12-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
The second amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"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"

"A well regulated militia" I've heard many say that this is the National Guard. The National Security Act of 1916 brought the National Guard under the control of Uncle Sam making it a "standing army" and not a militia. I live in Illinois and our state constitution says that "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." It establishes the Governor of Illinois as the commander in chief of the militia and grants authority to use the militia to "enforce the laws, suppress insurrection or repel invasion."

"shall not be infringed" The definition of Infringe, per websters dictionary, is "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another." Ok so maybe my vocabulary isn't the greatest, so I had to look up encroach. The definition of Encroach, per websters dictionary, is "to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another."

So based on the constitution, limiting what guns I can own and how large of a magazine I can use is an infringement or encroachment of my right to bare arms. Also, as a member of the Illinois militia, I should have the right to bear any kind of arms that I can bear. I have the right to be as equiped and the bad guys that I may be called upon to fight.

As a side note, everyone likes to brag on the UK and their gun ban. They have also banned pocket knives with a locking blade. A locking blade is thought to be a safety feature in the US and you'd be hard pressed to find one with out that feature. They have banned certain swords and sharp objects as well. This is what we are heading toward if this infringement or encroachment does not stop.

A couple of links to validate my concern.
www.gov.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Brought a tear to my eye. Star for you!

Bill



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Wow! I really expected someone to tear me to shreds after that.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave

So based on the constitution, limiting what guns I can own and how large of a magazine I can use is an infringement or encroachment of my right to bare arms. Also, as a member of the Illinois militia, I should have the right to bear any kind of arms that I can bear. I have the right to be as equiped and the bad guys that I may be called upon to fight.


The law in hte US is quite clear as a result of Heller vs District of Columbia - and the Supreme Court disagrees with you - take it up with them.

The link to the decision above is a long document - the wiki page summary may be easier to digest.


As a side note, everyone likes to brag on the UK and their gun ban. They have also banned pocket knives with a locking blade. A locking blade is thought to be a safety feature in the US and you'd be hard pressed to find one with out that feature. They have banned certain swords and sharp objects as well. This is what we are heading toward if this infringement or encroachment does not stop.

A couple of links to validate my concern.
www.gov.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...


And why is this a bad thing? Read the 2nd link.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave
"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"

...snip...

So based on the constitution, limiting what guns I can own and how large of a magazine I can use is an infringement or encroachment of my right to bare arms. Also, as a member of the Illinois militia, I should have the right to bear any kind of arms that I can bear.


a) well looking at the language, the magazine capacity may be regulated all right. As well as other features of weapons.

b) where do you draw the limit? A large vehicle borne fertilizer bomb is most certainly a weapon. Would it be OK to drive around in Hummers laden with a couple of those? What about poison dart tube? While we are at chemical/bio, what about a grenade loaded with Anthrax? A bottle of Sarin you can throw at the "bad guys"?

Look, you said "any kind". I just don't see how that makes any sense.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Where do you draw the limit? .........Why do we need a limit? Farmers have trucks full of fertilizer all the time. I will agree with the mental illness restriction, but any other law abiding citizen should be able to own any type of arms that he can afford. Rocket launchers, grenades, M60's, claymore.......If you are a law abiding citizen with no history of mental illness, then the sky is the limit. And if we end up fighting off tyrants and terrorists on our home soil, I'll find the guy with the rockets and be on his team.

Before its brought up, because I'm sure it will be. No I don't think people should walk around with anti-tank rockets or any of the other weapons that I mentioned, but owning them is a different story.

Oh, but all of those things were designed to kill people and should be banned in order to keep everyone safe. Sports cars were designed to go fast, faster than the law allows. People are killed every single day because some nut was driving 100 in a 55. Using your logic, sports cars should be banned as well. As a matter of fact every car in America can exceed the legal limit and should be banned. Break out the bicycles people!





new topics




 
22
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join