Donald Trump feels that loaded weapons should be allowed in elementary schools.

[hadit]

Friendly fire kills too. And teachers will spend less time on gun training than on grading papers and record keeping. Ask anyone who has been in a fire fight the difference between that and the range.

By that "logic" there should be no such thing as armed security guards.

Armed guards (theoretically) are focused on guarding and understand the risk of not paying attention, teachers are focused on teaching. I've stood four hour midwatches in the dark and cold, which can be a distraction, but remained alert because every fifteen minutes I needed to sign off on the log and the walk between posts took fifteen minutes, and I never knew if the OD might be waiting for me there or anywhere between the posts. If he was I had better be ready to challenge him and respond to one of the General Orders for Sentry Duty.

The bottom line remains, that teacher is the last line of defense for the children in his/her care, and you want to make sure he/she has limited options to protect those children.

Do you believe an elementary school teacher lies awake at night dreaming of becoming a hero by killing another human being?

No. I do believe an elementary school teacher who watched his/her students be massacred by a shooter while he/she was unable to stop it would lie awake at night, replaying the entire incident over and over, consumed by guilt.

Do you believe a teacher will react more quickly than someone intent on committing murder?

Very possibly, yes. All circumstances are different.

Consider the act of shooting, shooting at a target which will not shoot back is simple,

Which is the status quo in the classroom today. A shooter has the utmost confidence that he will be able to kill at leisure, because no one will be shooting back.

and yet those who don't have much experience rarely hit the black with any regularity. Imagine the fear plus the smell, sound and screams surrounding such an event? It is a recipe for panic no matter how much training a teacher might have had.

And minus the teacher being armed, the same panic will ensue, with even more death. How many children ARE you willing to sacrifice to satisfy the anti-gun agenda?

Like I've said, and will continue to say, that teacher is the last line of defense those children have. Why limit the teacher's options to protect the children?

 

[hadit]

What a depressing thread.
Arguing about the necessity of teachers in US schools to carry firearms in order to protect the children from other Americans.

Yes, it is depressing to realize how far American society has fallen.

 

[Brain357]

Accidental shooting at high school graduation wounds 2, police say | Fox News

 

[Brain357]

Accidental shooting at Patterson Elementary School

 

[Brain357]

Accidental shooting at school that injured teacher sparks discussion on concealed carry laws

 

[Iceweasel]

Welp, Donald still lied. And no amount of false comparisons is going to change that. Of course he couldnt ever damage anything to do with govt. Because he wasnt ever in govt.

Its like saying a bird broke a branch out of a tree and at least a duck never has

The crux of is that Hillary has damaged US NATIONAL SECURITY to which it can NEVER be repaired. Trump hasn't done that (or anything even close)

Then again Bush Dubya did something far worse than that, and he got reelected by the public. So, history repeats itself, seems Hillary has the mandate to win.

How does that even make sense to you?

 

[ptbw forever]

Donald Trump feels that loaded weapons should be allowed in elementary schools.


Good. When law-abiding adults are allowed their freedom to own and carry, most still won't bother. But a few will. And some nutcase planning a Sandy Hook type massacre, hoping for tons of headlines after he's dead, will know that probably a few people nearby are armed... and he won't know which ones. And he knows he probably won't last beyond his first few shots, and so will only get a mention on Page 4 below the ads for cabbage. So he'll be less likely to pull his little scene in the first place.

How many kids that were killed at Sandy Hook, would still be alive today if Democrats hadn't forbidden all law-abiding citizens to defend the kids in their charge?

If the principal, Dawn Hochsprung, had access to a weapon, is there a chance Lanza could have been stopped?

If Victoria Soto had been armed, could she have protected her students?

We'll never know, because they didn't have a chance against Lanza, did they?

Thread......

 

[ptbw forever]

Donald Trump feels that loaded weapons should be allowed in elementary schools.


Good. When law-abiding adults are allowed their freedom to own and carry, most still won't bother. But a few will. And some nutcase planning a Sandy Hook type massacre, hoping for tons of headlines after he's dead, will know that probably a few people nearby are armed... and he won't know which ones. And he knows he probably won't last beyond his first few shots, and so will only get a mention on Page 4 below the ads for cabbage. So he'll be less likely to pull his little scene in the first place.

How many kids that were killed at Sandy Hook, would still be alive today if Democrats hadn't forbidden all law-abiding citizens to defend the kids in their charge?

None. But you are free to continue the fantasy that guns in the hands of teachers are a panacea for gun violence in the schools.

Let's do this: The NRA ought to charge a minimum assessment to all of its members of $120.00 per year to select a someone in every classroom in your state who would be willing to be armed on campus (or a parent, custodian, volunteer); provide each with a proper firearm once they have been trained, evaluated by a psychologist and determined to be a sane and sober person.. Then continue this study for five years and see what outcome might transpire.

That would be the end of the Democratic Party.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the gun-rights-haters are still missing the biggest benefit of allowing law-abiding adults to carry, including in schools. Sure, you might assign a trained teacher in places. But the greatest benefit comes from bad guys not knowing which adult(s) are armed. You must allow all law-abiding adults to carry. Most still won't bother, but a few will.

And some nutcase planning a Sandy Hook type massacre, hoping for tons of headlines after he's dead, will know that probably a few people nearby are armed... and he won't know which ones. And he knows he probably won't last beyond his first few shots, and so will only get a mention on Page 4 below the ads for cabbage. So he'll be less likely to pull his little scene in the first place.

And there you go. No shots fired, no danger to anyone. And the kids and adults the nutcase would have killed, live on instead.

Doesn't always work, occasionally a nutcase will try it anyway. But often it does cause them to decide not to. It's the best way to save lives anyone has come up with yet.

And the gun-rights-hating liberals are, of course, dead set against it. You have to wonder why.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It does not have the phrase ..."on programs that benefit all Americans equally". You either a liar or damn stupid, or both.

How like a liberal, to parse a statement in hair-splitting ways that make no difference, and then try to pretend you have made a point.

"General Welfare" in the late 1700s meant, of course, the welfare of everyone in the country. As opposed to "local welfare", which meant the well-being of isolated groups (what we call "special interests") today.

The so-called "General Welfare" clause in Art. 1, Sec. 8 says that the Fed govt can spend money only on its debts, national defense, and programs that benefit the entire country. Not programs that benefit smaller groups.

Spending on Special Interests by the Fed is unconstitutional.

So many ignorant liberals. So little bandwidth available to explain the Constitution to them... when they don't even listen anyway.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Donald Trump feels that loaded weapons should be allowed in elementary schools.


Good. When law-abiding adults are allowed their freedom to own and carry, most still won't bother. But a few will. And some nutcase planning a Sandy Hook type massacre, hoping for tons of headlines after he's dead, will know that probably a few people nearby are armed... and he won't know which ones. And he knows he probably won't last beyond his first few shots, and so will only get a mention on Page 4 below the ads for cabbage. So he'll be less likely to pull his little scene in the first place.

How many kids that were killed at Sandy Hook, would still be alive today if Democrats hadn't forbidden all law-abiding citizens to defend the kids in their charge?

None. But you are free to continue the fantasy that guns in the hands of teachers are a panacea for gun violence in the schools.

Let's do this: The NRA ought to charge a minimum assessment to all of its members of $120.00 per year to select a someone in every classroom in your state who would be willing to be armed on campus (or a parent, custodian, volunteer); provide each with a proper firearm once they have been trained, evaluated by a psychologist and determined to be a sane and sober person.. Then continue this study for five years and see what outcome might transpire.

That would be the end of the Democratic Party.

Oh, so ptbw eschews a study, and believed he(?) is prescient and Knows the future. Typical of the dumb shits who dominate the Crazy Right Wing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It does not have the phrase ..."on programs that benefit all Americans equally". You either a liar or damn stupid, or both.

How like a liberal, to parse a statement in hair-splitting ways that make no difference, and then try to pretend you have made a point.

"General Welfare" in the late 1700s meant, of course, the welfare of everyone in the country. As opposed to "local welfare", which meant the well-being of isolated groups (what we call "special interests") today.

The so-called "General Welfare" clause in Art. 1, Sec. 8 says that the Fed govt can spend money only on its debts, national defense, and programs that benefit the entire country. Not programs that benefit smaller groups.

Spending on Special Interests by the Fed is unconstitutional.

So many ignorant liberals. So little bandwidth available to explain the Constitution to them... when they don't even listen anyway.

FU. I've taken ConLaw, you are too stupid to have ever taken a post graduate course.

 

[Little-Acorn]

FU. I've taken ConLaw,

Put it back.

(The usual liberal insults, ignorance and lies deleted)

TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll attack the messenger instead, insult him, call names, and all the other things liberals habitually resort to when they can't win the debate.

Back to the subject:
Liberals base a lot of their usurpation of power on the falsehood that the misnamed "Welfare Clause" authorizes Congress to spend money on anything that halps anyone. But the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution wrote that clause to say that Congress could spend money ONLY on paying debts, the national defense, and programs that benefitted all Americans evenly.

It basically forbade Congress spending money on "special interests". This hits today's big-govt Democrats where they live: Vote-buying of certain groups is flatly unconstitutional.

No wonder they fight so hard to defend their imagined version.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Trump wants guns in classrooms — maybe

On Friday, speaking at the National Rifle Association's annual convention, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that he, as president, would do away with all gun-free zones. Schools are, of course, gun-free zones, and Trump had said on a previous occasion, "I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools."

After the NRA speech, Hillary Clinton called Trump out for saying he would allow guns in classrooms, which are rooms that exist in schools.

Donald Trump: ‘I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools’



To clear things up, Trump went on Fox News on Sunday and said this:

"I don't want to have guns in classrooms. Although, in some cases, teachers should have guns in classrooms. … Things that are going on in our schools are unbelievable. You look at some of our schools, unbelievable what's going on. But I'm not advocating guns in classrooms. But remember, in some cases, and a lot of people have made this case, teachers should be able to have guns. Trained teachers should be able to have guns."

How much clearer can the man be? He doesn't want guns in classrooms, Clinton is a liar for saying so, but he does think there should be guns in classrooms, but he's not advocating for them, but he thinks they should be there.

-----------------------------------------

I think it was all a suggestion except when it wasn't. That should clear things up nicely.

All of which proves you are a retarded functional illiterate.

Trump is saying that he does not want guns to be assigned to classrooms themselves directly, but if some teachers want to carry concealed then they should be allowed to in order to protect the children.

But babbling idiots like you demonstrate that even a maestro at communication as Trump is cannot over come the stupidity of some libtards.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh if it wasn't so tragic and insane. It's estimated that a thousand Chicago citizens will be murdered by the end of the year as a result of out of control gang bangers and the freaking Trib has their low information idiot left wing readers all worked up about Trump and the NRA. No surprises here.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I believe that guns should be allowed in elementary school, just as soon as they are allowed in the GOP convention. Seems to me they share a lot of similarities.....

 

[ptbw forever]

Donald Trump feels that loaded weapons should be allowed in elementary schools.


Good. When law-abiding adults are allowed their freedom to own and carry, most still won't bother. But a few will. And some nutcase planning a Sandy Hook type massacre, hoping for tons of headlines after he's dead, will know that probably a few people nearby are armed... and he won't know which ones. And he knows he probably won't last beyond his first few shots, and so will only get a mention on Page 4 below the ads for cabbage. So he'll be less likely to pull his little scene in the first place.

How many kids that were killed at Sandy Hook, would still be alive today if Democrats hadn't forbidden all law-abiding citizens to defend the kids in their charge?

None. But you are free to continue the fantasy that guns in the hands of teachers are a panacea for gun violence in the schools.

Let's do this: The NRA ought to charge a minimum assessment to all of its members of $120.00 per year to select a someone in every classroom in your state who would be willing to be armed on campus (or a parent, custodian, volunteer); provide each with a proper firearm once they have been trained, evaluated by a psychologist and determined to be a sane and sober person.. Then continue this study for five years and see what outcome might transpire.

That would be the end of the Democratic Party.

Oh, so ptbw eschews a study, and believed he(?) is prescient and Knows the future. Typical of the dumb shits who dominate the Crazy Right Wing.

I am principally left wing dipshit, and there is no actual study.

If there was an actual study on gun owning teachers who carry in the classroom and their mental and psychological state, the anti-gun nonsense spewed by the idiotic modern day left would die out completely and it would be a losing issue even in shitholes like California.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I believe that guns should be allowed in elementary school, just as soon as they are allowed in the GOP convention. Seems to me they share a lot of similarities.....

Guns are already allowed in Trumps rallies.

If the GOP 'leadership' is too wussified to let their own members carry guns into the convention, then fuck them.

 

[protectionist]

What a depressing thread.
Arguing about the necessity of teachers in US schools to carry firearms in order to protect the children from other Americans.

It's not just to protect them from "other Americans" It is to protect them from non-Americans too, like thos ewho come here from other countries with the intention of killing Americans. And Muslim jihadists are NOT AMERICANS, even if they were born here. A true Muslim has no nationality, other then the Ummah (international community of Muslims)

 

[protectionist]

Then again Bush Dubya did something far worse than that, and he got reelected by the public. So, history repeats itself, seems Hillary has the mandate to win.

So you're saying that now in 2016, you want to vote for a person who has damaged NATIONAL SECURITY to which it can NEVER be repaired ? You need to do some good, hard thinking about what you're advocating.