Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signs into law bill allowing armed teachers

No! you are lying
LOL

 

I wish that the perpetrator didn't have access to those weapons

There WERE trained & armed people on site...and it did squat.

 

The "scenario" that I am advocating for is that NO ONE has a semi automatic weapon.

 

Yes or No questions are mostly posed to AVOID intellectual integrity

Kind of like "When did you stop beating your wife?"

 

As has already been noted, police are under no obligation to protect anyone not in their custody, as you've pointed out. Again. Does that mean you object to having trained & armed staff like my daughter onsite, as the last line of defense? Yes or no?

 

I DO object to having "trained & armed staff" onsite like your daughter.

Unless your daughter is Law Enforcement (or possibly prior military) her training will be minimal, at best. Her primary job as "staff" is most likely teaching or administration. To face an armed assailant, use of a firearm and tactical situations should be your PRIMARY training, not just handing you a gun with a few hours at a shooting range.

RW gun nuts seem to think that everyone is just a John McCain waiting to be called into action.

I hate to burst your bubble but real life is not an action movie. Odds are someone, like your daughter, is going to do more harm than good in such a situation. At the VERY least she would be a distraction to the cops that DO show up.

 

Oh FFS…

Simple question: Does a gun decide when,where,who to shoot ?

 

Your first objection "It was cobbled together" does not apply since I STATED it was separate statements.
Your objection to it is just a right wing talking point...it comes from the freaking "Federalist Society" for crying out loud.

Secondly Burger in no way implies that the 2nd Amendment is about "sporting goods" or the protection of hunting and fishing. He states very clearly what the intent of the 2nd Amendment was, something that Republicans avoid like the freaking plague when discussing this issue.

"the real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies, the militia, would be maintained for the defense of the state"

There is NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment that even HINTS at the RW talking point of "self defense". The 2nd Amendment was NEVER about an the right of an individual to defend themselves. It is about the ability of the citizens to defend the state.

 

I'm not opposed to this, but I'm not sure I'm 100% in favor either yet. I'll be keeping an eye on how this works out in Tennessee and reserve full judgment until then.

 

You may not have the courage to read this but with you making the first ad hominem attack because your argument was going nowhere, and then when confronted with real thought, that is what you do.
Nice try at being adult!
And once again when someone makes an opposing point of view you once again do your best at trying to insult someone.
With that being said it is an HONOR to have you ignore me because you cannot seem to carry on an adult conversation.
Now you can join the little kids club.

 

I will have to look up which magazine that has an article about the Parkland shooting. It is covered quite well from charges being brought against law enforcement for their lack of response and then enters into the YEARS and DECADES of training for the officers.
Yet some pretend to believe that a week or 2 of training makes someone this unimaginable hero.
It is much more complicated than what most want to believe.

 

Agree 100%, this is a stupid move, it would be more ideal to have police officers in the building and an access perimeter for general security. Teacher certification takes on a whole new meaning and what if the teacher doesn't want to be armed.

 

In a previous post the idea was to put metal detectors at all entrances to the buildings.
But then that is going to make some of the maga get all nervous about putting money into "education".

 

Inner city schools did such measures to reduce gun violence in schools and it worked.

 

what did CRUIKSHANK say? if you understand that case you understand that an individual right was contemplated all along. Your claims are specious and no serious legal scholar even supports your position anymore

 

Congratulations! You're the very first PF anti gunner to have the balls to come up with an unequivocal answer, in my 2+ years of asking! Well done! Fortunately, it's not your call to make.

I'd be curious to know what your definition of a "RW gun nut" is, and whether my daughter & I qualify. I admit to being unclear on how the late Senator McCain is relevant to your rant.

I hate to burst your bubble, but neither me nor anyone I know believes that it is. I would encourage you to keep your adolescent fantasies to yourself, and avoid projecting them upon those you disagree with.

And your evidence for that is... what, exactly? Tennessee is now the 34th state to have green lighted armed teachers, and there are hundreds of schools nationwide who have done exactly that. Given those numbers, you must have at least one example of the "harm" you're so convinced people like my daughter will inflict. Right?

Bueller?

 

The OP put me on ignore for not listening to their opinion about this over zealot idea of some "hollywood" scene being enacted in real life.
When law enforcement enters the building and suddenly see someone brandishing a fire arm should they be subject to firing upon that individual or do they ask questions. Is there some kind of picture roll that law enforcement needs to memorize before getting into an active shooting situation.
This really has some bad ramifications.
If all of the "dirty" Harry's use their weapon and kill or injure someone they need to be held responsible.

 

Wonderful fantasy scenario.

I only deal with reality.

And the reality is that regardless of laws, anybody who wants to obtain a gun can and will.

 

Reality such as everyone should have the right to such mass killing devices as AR-15!

 

Then they won't be armed. Period. All of the armed teacher programs I am aware of - including my daughter's - are staffed exclusively by volunteers. Not all who volunteer will make the cut. Maybe because something popped up on the mandatory criminal background check. Or a red flag was raised during the mandatory psych eval (my daughter had to undergo 2 of those: one administered by a shrink who consults for the supervising Sherrif's Dept, and another by the school shrink who has no connection to law enforcement; or because - in the case of one of my daughter's colleagues - the live fire training persuaded him he was unsuited for the duty.

Anyone - teachers or otherwise - who don't want to be armed shouldn't be, and won't be on campus.

 

Except of course the dou¢hebag active shooter, whom the anti-gunners among us would rather our teachers be helpless to repel.

You lefty anti-gunners are so... compassionate.

 

I'd put money on deranged criminals bringing illegal guns to attack defenseless schools many times before what you describe happens even once.

The real question will be how often deranged criminals show up to attack a school that they know has armed teachers. Which probably won't ever happen.

 

34 states have approved armed teachers on campus. Hundreds of schools nationwide have done so. Given those numbers, surely you can cite at least one example of that having occurred. Right?

Bueller?

 

FYI, if a teacher can't teach because they won't carry a gun it introduces a litany of legal complications.

As I said, just get a few policemen to patrol, then have an access perimeter. FYI, high tech companies do this, especially those with DoD contracts. Your notion that outside armed personnel is the only way is narrow minded.

 

What on earth are you talking about? What about "staffed exclusively by volunteers" is unclear to you? Who in this thread has argued that "...a teacher can't teach because they won't carry a gun"...? On the other hand, I suppose I can sort of understand how much easier it is for posers to tell lies about the people they disagree with.

Kindly cite where I have ever stated, suggested, or implied anything of the kind. That's rhetorical, of course. You can't. As I've already noted, it's so much easier for you and your ilk to peddle lies than it is to engage in honest debate.