The state is now buying guns for Teachers

The only thing (in this context) I have a cultural loathing for is how blithely the USA accepts massacres by guns on a weekly basis. 'You' have no loathing for that, in fact, 'you' allow it and you know, all the while, that the Australian model did have a significant impact, and if it were followed in the USA, it would have an similar impact.

'You' don't want that to happen, so 'you' can keep your toys, your jollies...ie.....an arsenal of guns in 'your' home, and you will rationalise that away, excuse 'yourself,' on the basis of the 2nd, an archaic anachronism in today's World.

 

What you’re suggesting is wrong.
Everybody in the world starts out with the equal amount of ‘freedom’, what exists for people are lesser or greater amounts of restrictions. Often Collectively agreed.
You may wish to re frame your notion by comparing restrictions, because freedom as such does not exist.

 

Is that what I wrote?

If you want to dispute what I have said, then be accurate.

 

The “door” is open, but your mind is not.

You see it as OK for a teacher to be FORCED to assist those impacted by a health issue, but not OK to be ALLOWED to PREVENT a health issue. When it comes to health, prevention is always the best approach.

 

Are there school shootings that don’t involve guns in schools? Your position seems to be completely illogical.

Do you believe school shootings are common or not? I’m attempting to get you to THINK. I’m more interested in your thought process than your writing skills.

 

yes I know some people hate freedom. I do not, and I reject your claims

 

Define freedom then.
You will end up by framing the concept in terms of restrictions.

 

owning guns is a major freedom that people such as you want to curtail

 

And you walked right in. The answer is so obvious I need not type it .

 

Do you think teacher should have the same shotgun that you said that you own or that you want to own for self defense?

 

Restrictions are the opposite of freedom so your post absolutely contradicts itself.

The more restrictions you exist under, the less freedom you have. That is simply common sense.

Subjects who exist in a police state have a government who treats them like little children placing restrictions upon them

 

Like Texas, for example?

 

You can’t type an answer because you don’t have one.



Nice try.

 

there are two main motivations for restricting what others do

1) because you don't have an issue with the other person but you honestly believe his actions-if unrestricted, could objectively cause harm

2) because you have an issue with the person and you intend to harass him by restricting something he does

 

You have it wrong. As I said everyone is born equally ‘free’. There is no other definition. What frames the concept of freedom are restrictions, for example we are free to snatch an ice cream from a five year old child on a hot beach, but most of us don’t because there are restrictions internally or externally imposed. The law, morality. Total freedom is for anybody to do what ever they please, but that doesn’t happen.
Are you ‘free’ to drive on any side of the road you please, and if it suits you to drive on the left but the law obliged you to drive on the right do you complain about having no ‘freedom’?

 

I reject your concept of Freedom.

 

I have not said that explicitly at all. Are there supposedly major and minor freedoms? Can you supply a list indicating the hierarchy?

 

Fine.
Do whatever you please.
See how far it gets you.

 

what it gets me is that I suspect most on this board will agree with me and not your definition. I like being correct

 

People don't have to have a reason to own a shotgun in Texas and they can legally own one for home defense

 

Groups who demand you have a reason that meets their requirements to exercise a freedom are a good reason for all freedom cherishing Americans to be well armed and well trained.

 

We exist to serve as a sore reminder of their firearms emasculation and it makes them angry that some people still have rights

 

years ago, I read an interesting article I can no longer find. It basically asserted that most gun banners are cowards-they are afraid of their own ability to defend themselves and they feel if they owned guns they would hurt themselves. So they try to banish guns to remove something that accentuates their own feelings of inadequacy. And they want to disarm others for the same reason. Now I don't think this applies to all gun banners but it certainly does to some

 

But, but, but, but they can't watch Porn Hub....Nanny State?

 

Written by some now disgraced utter moron on the now disgrace NRA?