Let’s Arm Teachers. Yeah, That’s a Peachy Idea (Eye Roll)

[Cecilie1200]

*snore* Oh, I'm sorry. Your deflection bored me to sleep for a moment.I'm not a leftist snowflake, dear. Triggering is not an issue, and perhaps you can stop projecting and spewing kneejerk Trump hatred long enough to recognize when your poor word choices are being questioned.

`
I understand. Please try not to worry about it.

Still waiting for you to recognize and answer the question. Perhaps I should have packed a lunch.

 

[dudmuck]

The dumb left wingers never miss a chance to be despicable racist demagogues

Should we be surprised? It’s found among those who can’t offer anything intellectually constructive in a discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Allowing teachers to be armed...hmmmm...will you also allow those same teachers to use the private sales loophole to arm themselves without a background check?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Let's think about his.....hmmmm...

Just maybe?

Just maybe?

Um, no, not at all.

• Jesus was a man. Men have limited lifespans.
• According to Jesus, Jesus' life had to be sacrificed to save man's soul. If he'd had a gun, he wouldn't have used it to save his life. The ought century had ranged weapons and if Jesus and his disciples were of a mind to resist the Romans, they would have secured them and done so.
• The state crucified Jesus and, gun or no gun, as it did with Spartacus some 50 years later, the state was going to use whatever resources it needed to to apprehend him and see him dead.

Jesus also CHOSE to allow Himself to be killed. He certainly didn't have to, and wouldn't have needed any weapon to stop it.

Given Jesus' own attestations about himself and his purpose, I don't know that he had a choice. Bees, for example, exist as an element in the "grand design" for getting plants pollinated. They can no more choose to play that role than could Jesus choose his role in the "grand design" for saving man's souls.

Of course He had a choice. How could God give humans free will to fulfill or reject His purpose for us if He Himself does not have free will as well?

And what possible value could His sacrifice have had if it had not been voluntary?

"As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. ... Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father" (John 10:15-17-18).

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
-- Luke 22:43

• How much more of a declaration might one expect there be that Jesus' fate had already been writ large by God, the Father, and that Jesus was well aware that was the case?
• What was Jesus to do? Not be God incarnate as man, thus be not the Son of God? Assuming that Jesus was indeed both God incarnate and man, it must necessarily have been impossible for him to do anything other than die to save man's souls. After all, the "God not incarnate" part of him had defined the terms by which man's souls could be saved, and the human part of Jesus had to have known that to be so.
  
  Even if the "God not incarnate" part of Jesus changed his mind about saving man's souls, that too would have had to have been known to Jesus; thus regardless of the outcome -- God as man among us dying or His not doing so -- the outcome was nonetheless predetermined by the decision/will of God the Father which, by Jesus' attestations that he was a member of the Holy Trinity, was known to him.
  
  By suggesting that Jesus had a choice, what one must necessarily also imply is that the "Jesus-God hivemind" had some sort of partition of consciousness, of conscious activity, whereby part of His consciousness had no clue about the will of the other and could thus act independently and absent knowledge of the other half of his own consciousness. Well, pardon me, but even in the realm of pondering the divine, to say nothing of the rationale and pronoucements of Christianity's organizational founders, that doesn't make sense.
  
  John tells readers that Jesus did, as Thomas suggests, "rage against the dying of the light." That may merely have been something the human part of him, being human, could not help but do, much as any other instinctual response humans exhibit.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-- Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"​

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's think about his.....hmmmm...

Just maybe?

Just maybe?

Um, no, not at all.

• Jesus was a man. Men have limited lifespans.
• According to Jesus, Jesus' life had to be sacrificed to save man's soul. If he'd had a gun, he wouldn't have used it to save his life. The ought century had ranged weapons and if Jesus and his disciples were of a mind to resist the Romans, they would have secured them and done so.
• The state crucified Jesus and, gun or no gun, as it did with Spartacus some 50 years later, the state was going to use whatever resources it needed to to apprehend him and see him dead.

Jesus also CHOSE to allow Himself to be killed. He certainly didn't have to, and wouldn't have needed any weapon to stop it.

Given Jesus' own attestations about himself and his purpose, I don't know that he had a choice. Bees, for example, exist as an element in the "grand design" for getting plants pollinated. They can no more choose to play that role than could Jesus choose his role in the "grand design" for saving man's souls.

Of course He had a choice. How could God give humans free will to fulfill or reject His purpose for us if He Himself does not have free will as well?

And what possible value could His sacrifice have had if it had not been voluntary?

"As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. ... Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father" (John 10:15-17-18).

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
-- Luke 22:43

• How much more of a declaration might one expect there be that Jesus' fate had already been writ large by God, the Father, and that Jesus was well aware that was the case?
• What was Jesus to do? Not be God incarnate as man, thus be not the Son of God? Assuming that Jesus was indeed both God incarnate and man, it must necessarily have been impossible for him to do anything other than die to save man's souls. After all, the "God not incarnate" part of him had defined the terms by which man's souls could be saved, and the human part of Jesus had to have known that to be so.
  
  Even if the "God not incarnate" part of Jesus changed his mind about saving man's souls, that too would have had to have been known to Jesus; thus regardless of the outcome -- God as man among us dying or His not doing so -- the outcome was nonetheless predetermined by the decision/will of God the Father which, by Jesus' attestations that he was a member of the Holy Trinity, was known to him.
  
  By suggesting that Jesus had a choice, what one must necessarily also imply is that the "Jesus-God hivemind" had some sort of partition of consciousness, of conscious activity, whereby part of His consciousness had no clue about the will of the other and could thus act independently and absent knowledge of the other half of his own consciousness. Well, pardon me, but even in the realm of pondering the divine, to say nothing of the rationale and pronoucements of Christianity's organizational founders, that doesn't make sense.
  
  John tells readers that Jesus did, as Thomas suggests, "rage against the dying of the light." That may merely have been something the human part of him, being human, could not help but do, much as any other instinctual response humans exhibit.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-- Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"​

Yes, God had a plan of which Jesus was a part. Why do you assume that means Jesus had no choice about playing that part?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

C-PAC had armed security protection. Nice try.

Gun free zones do no prohibit armed security.

* Yawn * There are no facts showing strict gun laws and gun free zones effectively reducing violent crime and reduced the murder rate. Murder statistics in Baltimore are a clear proof of that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Um, no, not at all.

• Jesus was a man. Men have limited lifespans.
• According to Jesus, Jesus' life had to be sacrificed to save man's soul. If he'd had a gun, he wouldn't have used it to save his life. The ought century had ranged weapons and if Jesus and his disciples were of a mind to resist the Romans, they would have secured them and done so.
• The state crucified Jesus and, gun or no gun, as it did with Spartacus some 50 years later, the state was going to use whatever resources it needed to to apprehend him and see him dead.

Jesus also CHOSE to allow Himself to be killed. He certainly didn't have to, and wouldn't have needed any weapon to stop it.

Given Jesus' own attestations about himself and his purpose, I don't know that he had a choice. Bees, for example, exist as an element in the "grand design" for getting plants pollinated. They can no more choose to play that role than could Jesus choose his role in the "grand design" for saving man's souls.

Of course He had a choice. How could God give humans free will to fulfill or reject His purpose for us if He Himself does not have free will as well?

And what possible value could His sacrifice have had if it had not been voluntary?

"As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. ... Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father" (John 10:15-17-18).

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
-- Luke 22:43

• How much more of a declaration might one expect there be that Jesus' fate had already been writ large by God, the Father, and that Jesus was well aware that was the case?
• What was Jesus to do? Not be God incarnate as man, thus be not the Son of God? Assuming that Jesus was indeed both God incarnate and man, it must necessarily have been impossible for him to do anything other than die to save man's souls. After all, the "God not incarnate" part of him had defined the terms by which man's souls could be saved, and the human part of Jesus had to have known that to be so.
  
  Even if the "God not incarnate" part of Jesus changed his mind about saving man's souls, that too would have had to have been known to Jesus; thus regardless of the outcome -- God as man among us dying or His not doing so -- the outcome was nonetheless predetermined by the decision/will of God the Father which, by Jesus' attestations that he was a member of the Holy Trinity, was known to him.
  
  By suggesting that Jesus had a choice, what one must necessarily also imply is that the "Jesus-God hivemind" had some sort of partition of consciousness, of conscious activity, whereby part of His consciousness had no clue about the will of the other and could thus act independently and absent knowledge of the other half of his own consciousness. Well, pardon me, but even in the realm of pondering the divine, to say nothing of the rationale and pronoucements of Christianity's organizational founders, that doesn't make sense.
  
  John tells readers that Jesus did, as Thomas suggests, "rage against the dying of the light." That may merely have been something the human part of him, being human, could not help but do, much as any other instinctual response humans exhibit.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-- Dylan Thomas, "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night"​

Yes, God had a plan of which Jesus was a part. Why do you assume that means Jesus had no choice about playing that part?

If my various expositions above didn't convey to you precisely why I have asserted (not assumed) that Jesus had not choice but to die, I have no better ways to answer you; sharing the nature and extent of why I made that assertion has formed the entirety of the nature and extent of (I think) every post I've in this thread made.

I don't know whether my exposition is insufficiently clear or whether you don't comprehend what I wrote. If either be so, however, our discourse is done because I have no better way to communicate my thoughts and I'm certainly not going to restate them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The dumb left wingers never miss a chance to be despicable racist demagogues

Should we be surprised? It’s found among those who can’t offer anything intellectually constructive in a discussion.

If that’s you’re only source, then you need to learn some actual research over shallow reporting. How often has their reporting been discredited?

 

[EGR one]

So the gun nuts want the federal government to force teachers to become law enforcement officers? Why is that hilarious?

`
This only pertains to public schools. The federal government has no jurisdiction in private schools. They can't force them into having teachers with guns in class.
`

No one, that advocates arming teachers, has even hinted at forcing teachers to carry or have access to weapons. It appears that loons are attempting to build a straw man that you can shoot down. A clear sign that even you have become aware that your arguments are nonsense.

The federal government has no jurisdiction over the vast majority of public schools. Any action in the public schools requires states and local school boards to carry it out.

 

[EGR one]

"Huge expense"?! How about just allowing teachers who are willing and who are already gun certified to carry a gun at school? That would cost NOTHING. Just how much do you think a gun-safety course costs? A standard handgun or rifle safety course will run you between $100 and $250. You can do the training in six to eight hours. It's not rocket science. And why would the federal government have to fund any of this? States and counties should easily be able to handle the minimal expense that would be involved.

`
This one is way out of the loop. Both the feds and the states have been cutting back on shared revenue to schools for years now. School districts can just barely afford books much less the cost of implementing this stupid and insane idea of trumps.
`

School districts spend a large chunk of their revenue on bureaucrats and other non teaching personnel. On average, for every teacher, there is a non teaching employee. Get rid of about half to two thirds of those non teaching employees, and schools will have plenty of money for what they need.

 

[Windparadox]

* Yawn * There are no facts showing strict gun laws and gun free zones effectively reducing violent crime and reduced the murder rate. Murder statistics in Baltimore are a clear proof of that.

`
Actually, you're right. There are no stats that show the idea of a "gun free zone" actually works. The federal "Gun-Free School Zones Acts of 1990 & 1994" are punitive in nature and not at all an effective deterrent nor necessarily stricter gun laws, per se. So long as "Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US", criminals well be buying stolen guns taken from stupid and negligent gun owners.
`

 

[Windparadox]

No one, that advocates arming teachers, has even hinted at forcing teachers to carry or have access to weapons. It appears that loons are attempting to build a straw man that you can shoot down. A clear sign that even you have become aware that your arguments are nonsense.The federal government has no jurisdiction over the vast majority of public schools. Any action in the public schools requires states and local school boards to carry it out.

`
No.....you don't say! Well I'll be......

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the gun nuts want the federal government to force teachers to become law enforcement officers? Why is that hilarious?

`
This only pertains to public schools. The federal government has no jurisdiction in private schools. They can't force them into having teachers with guns in class.
`

No one, that advocates arming teachers, has even hinted at forcing teachers to carry or have access to weapons. It appears that loons are attempting to build a straw man that you can shoot down.

So the real position is 'Do Nothing', when it comes to putting armed guards in schools.

 

[Cecilie1200]

* Yawn * There are no facts showing strict gun laws and gun free zones effectively reducing violent crime and reduced the murder rate. Murder statistics in Baltimore are a clear proof of that.

`
Actually, you're right. There are no stats that show the idea of a "gun free zone" actually works. The federal "Gun-Free School Zones Acts of 1990 & 1994" are punitive in nature and not at all an effective deterrent nor necessarily stricter gun laws, per se. So long as "Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US", criminals well be buying stolen guns taken from stupid and negligent gun owners.
`

Yes, how "negligent" of a person not to sit home 24 hours a day, guarding from burglars. How stupid of them to lock the doors and actually go out and live their lives.

 

[Windparadox]

Yes, how "negligent" of a person not to sit home 24 hours a day, guarding from burglars. How stupid of them to lock the doors and actually go out and live their lives.

`
The first thing I learned in gun safety is when not in use, keep your weapons LOCKED UP. Stupid and negligent gun owners are the prime suppliers of weapons for criminals.
`

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

.

Whenever a mass shooting occurs, the first words out of the mouths of conservatives is, “We need more guns in the hands of civilians.” Or something like it.

It’s that unreasonable conservative mind-set, that forces them to believe the fairy tale that untrained civilians know instinctively, where the gunfire is located, immediately recognize the individual(s) doing the shooting, and have the steel nerves and iron will to confront and kill the shooter(s), without hesitation or concern for their own safety.

What so often proves this unreasonable mind-set of the conservatives to be a total fantasy is the choice by trained law enforcement officers to avoid exacerbating an already uncontrolled situation. This can be seen no better than in the shooting incident last week at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

In addition to the school resource officer from the Broward County Sheriff’s office Scot Peterson, Coral Springs police officers arriving at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, found three additional Broward County Sheriff’s Deputies who had not yet entered the building.

Sadly, these four men apparently remained outside while directing Coral Springs police officers to the building where the shooting took place, even as the Coral Springs officers entered, joined by two newly arrived Broward County Deputies.

It is likely there will be a whitewash of this incident as “Sources cautioned that tapes are currently being reviewed and official accounts could ultimately differ from recollections of officers on the scene.” Gotta CYA to protect the county and themselves from the inevitable lawsuits.

But the coming whitewash aside, this again proves that “Rambo” instinct, which most conservatives are certain they posses, is a fairy tale they use to fool themselves.

As it turns out, Deputy Peterson was eligible for retirement. So one must wonder if that didn’t enter into his decision to remain outside. He had, after all, survived his career in law enforcement long enough to retire from the Sheriff’s Department. Like Peterson, the three other deputies could very well have had second thoughts, making them unsure of the results were they to rush headlong into the unknown.

Conservatives who are certain they have that “Rambo” instinct, like to think they are courageous hero-types and are capable of single-handedly saving the day. But, there is a good reason law enforcement agencies have SWAT teams. The officers who are members of these teams train and retrain regularly. They wear protective gear, have available to them fully automatic weapons, are experts in their use, and in the use of other military-style equipment.

The four experienced officers who were armed with only pistols chose caution and did not rush into the unknown situation. But, conservatives expect teachers armed only with pistols and minimal training to jump in and face killers firing their AR-15s at anything that moves.

It’s unfortunate these conservatives calling for the arming of teachers are so certain of this “Rambo” instinct. If it does exist, it does so only in a tiny, tiny percentage of regular citizens (most of whom must have death wishes).

As people of reason know, these conservatives are nothing more than “keyboard warriors”. They are brave beyond all else, but only when safely typing their attacks, anonymously. The truth is, they are too old, or too fat, or are out of shape, or too slow and crippled-up, or would freeze in fear, or any combination there of, to truly be the heroes they’ve convinced themselves they would be. They are the “Monday morning quarterbacks” of mass shooting response, and all of them would hesitate or totally freeze when called upon to weigh the threat of their own death against defending strangers. Just as the four Broward County Deputies did. No Rambos there.

As always, thoughtful comments are welcome. Unfortunately, in the conservatives' responses to this thread we can expect only their typical nonsense, denial, alternate facts, and off-topic silliness. (e.g. non-sequiturs, ratings, transference, memes, etc.), to which any reply is a waste of time.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/coward-sheriffs-deputy-one-four-12079659







.





.

Because gun free zones have worked so well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, how "negligent" of a person not to sit home 24 hours a day, guarding from burglars. How stupid of them to lock the doors and actually go out and live their lives.

`
The first thing I learned in gun safety is when not in use, keep your weapons LOCKED UP. Stupid and negligent gun owners are the prime suppliers of weapons for criminals.
`

Yes, because burglars NEVER steal anything that's been locked up. OBVIOUSLY, all stolen guns were simply lying out on the coffee table, helpfully loaded so as not to take up too much of the burglar's valuable time.

The more you talk, the more of a ignorant tweeko you reveal yourself to be.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If a teacher or administrator expresses interest in carrying a firearm into school, then I believe it is worth exploring. Have them undergo training, background checks, and monitoring. Further, need to enhance the locks, doors, and monitoring systems in a manner that does not compromise fire, safety, and operational flow of a school day - not an easy task.

Finally, we need to take down “gun free zone” signs. These are a joke and, at this point, an insult.

Background checks? The checks you have to undergo to be a teacher are quite sufficient!

Why are you people all so concerned about doors? I haven't seen a door that would not pass the test in the past 21 years and I have been in a LOT of schools! As long as the door locks, who cares about anything else?

There has yet to be an instance of someone shooting up a door and gaining access to a classroom! Why spend money on a problem that doesn't exist?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"Huge expense"?! How about just allowing teachers who are willing and who are already gun certified to carry a gun at school? That would cost NOTHING. Just how much do you think a gun-safety course costs? A standard handgun or rifle safety course will run you between $100 and $250. You can do the training in six to eight hours. It's not rocket science. And why would the federal government have to fund any of this? States and counties should easily be able to handle the minimal expense that would be involved.

`
This one is way out of the loop. Both the feds and the states have been cutting back on shared revenue to schools for years now. School districts can just barely afford books much less the cost of implementing this stupid and insane idea of trumps.
`

School districts spend a large chunk of their revenue on bureaucrats and other non teaching personnel. On average, for every teacher, there is a non teaching employee. Get rid of about half to two thirds of those non teaching employees, and schools will have plenty of money for what they need.

Let's see you source for that bullshit.

As a 21 year teacher, I agree there are what you would consider excess, but you have no clue as to what you are claiming.

 

[jc456]

No

So the gun nuts want the federal government to force teachers to become law enforcement officers?

Why is that hilarious?

Nope , wrong as usual