Arm the teachers...seriously?

The only point you made is that you don't know a thing about what you're talking about.

 

All one has to do is just click the little arrows to back track the chronology of the posts to see what I'm saying. But in true intellectually dishonest and cowardly fashion of the "conservative" gunner, you'll claim victory because I won't rehash physically every little point that has transpired. But here are some examples to the reader: Posts #675, 695, 838

Sorry, but your personal interpretation has nothing to due with documented history. Observe, from the horses mouth: http://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/How-We-Began/

 

You make the false comparison of a potential criminal assault to justify arming teachers as guns already "into the mix". Response to crime is a security or police action, NOT some quasi-vigilante move. Yes, professionals make mistakes...to assume that a non-professional with a few weeks training would do better is a gamble I would not like to take with my child or other parent's kids.

As to your supposition that as to increasing favor in odds of the school with an "unknown" armed teacher.....remember that there were armed security on at least two of the mass shooting crime scenes in recent years. And then again, we're back to square one as to how this armed teacher reacts, etc.

As to your last paragraph....why the hell would you think that a few weeks training is going to prevent an armed teacher (sanctioned by folks like you) who is going to lose it NOT use that gun as a threat? Each year, you have teachers across the nation being brought up on charges of abusing kids and/or their authority. The exception and not the rule I assure you, but none the less not a scenario I would want to throw guns into the statistics.

 

Newsflash for ya....you buy a car, YOU INHERIT THE REGISTRATION FOR THAT CAR, and you need a LICENSE to drive it. If you're a collector, you need ID and you get a receipt with transfer papers regardless if that car just sits in your backyard or garage. Ask any insurer. As I said before, the proposal to register all gun purchases gives the police one more tool in tracing weapons used in a crime. And before you laugh yourself silly, note that I said "IF"... not all weapons used in crimes have had their serial numbers successfully erased where the crime labs can't raise/identify them, don't cha know. Ask your local precinct if you don't believe me. Carry on, chuckles.

 

I went to the symphony tonight and I thought to myself all those musicians should have guns because they are such easy targets

 

I went to my sons UIL band competition and I thought to myself there are a thousand kids here with millions of dollars in instruments, there are no cops, and my and my wife's guns are out in the truck where they can do us no good. My sons band scored all 1s in the rehearsed performance and the sight reading.

 

If you accuse someone of being a liar, its a good idea to be able to back it up with proof, lest you be seen as one yourself, instead.

Its not my personal interpretation. Its US Code. The National Guard is part of the Organized Militia. The Unorganized Militia is everyone not in the Organized Militia (given that no politician would ever try to enforce disclusion upon women, the elderly or the disabled).

1. U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246

US Code

• Notes

prev | next
(a)
The militia of the United Statesconsists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guardand the Naval Militia; and
National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

You referenced his grandmother’s backyard. I want to know why you chose to include that detail - how is it relevant to your argument?

 

You avoided my main point: If a teacher is going to “lose it,” why do you believe a policy is going to prevent that teacher from bringing a firearm into her school? Answer, please and I will be happy to debate your other points in detail.

 

I remember those, back in 86 or 87 I worked as security at a state agency, and several people in the building carried their firearms on them. They always wanted to show me their latest toy. Once a lady showed me her .357 and she unloaded the rounds to show me what "Cop Killers" looked like. The first three rounds were Black Talon, also not sold any more, and the last three rounds were covered in Teflon. She said that is what allowed a hand gun caliber to penetrate a vest, hence "Cop Killers". Her husband was a Police Officer and she had gotten those rounds from him.

She was wrong, and the only people who called them Cop Killers learned the term from the media, NBC specifically. The Teflon allowed the round to deform enough to grab the barrel rifling and impart spin and accuracy.

"Cop Killer" bullets were a lie.

 

I don't have to have registration, or a license, or insurance for that car if it's staying on my property.

What about guns that didn't come with a serial number?

And stop calling people names.

 

None of which would ever pass constitutional muster. Therefore there is no reason to discuss such as if they actually possessed validity. They are nothing more than political talking points that are devoid of clarification as to exactly what each suggestion actually boils down to, as every term is exceedingly vague. Come up with actual specifics for each proposal, and then get back to us.

The experiment has already been underway for many decades. That experiment is legal firearms ownership. And going back for as long as records have been kept by law enforcement, there has been nothing to suggest that those who legally own firearms are more likely to kill themselves or innocent bystanders, than they are to defend themselves.

Then do not be making claims about what is more likely to happen, when it is admitted by yourself to not knowing whether or not it is factually correct.

 

Which has no legal definition that can be easily cited.

Meaning that quite literally every single caliber of rifle ammunition can be defined and categorized as such, and subsequently prohibited from ownership. Therefore the definition is useless, and has no merit in even being discussed.

 

Ronald Regan was also suffering from severe mental illness at the time of his statements and signings. Therefore the citation being presented by yourself is literally a crazy, deranged individual.

 

I didn't reference his "grandmother"

I know what you're asking though. I'll be happy to answer. The relevance is that it's funny. You see, once your original statement (that he was not killed because the cop thought he had a gun) was unequivocally proven false (with video, audio, time reference.... the works!) You made me work to get the proof, you made me look up the exact time stamp so you wouldn't have to make the "effort" to find it yourself, you even wanted me to diagnose your computer audio for free... And yet, after all that work, you fail to acknowledge the fact. This, objectively, causes you to lose all credibility. And that means that, after that point, any serious response to you is useless and you should only expect sarcasm...

I hope you got it. I don't usually explain sarcasm. If they get it, they get it... if they don't, they don't.... I only did it this time because it might help you become a more honest debater.

 

Wow. Six lies in one post. I think that might be a new record. And you still managed to evade the question.

 

I was out of the country at the time, and didn't follow the debate closely as it was happening. But myself, I learned the term from Ronald Reagan.

I guess it's as accurate as referring to the Affordable Care Act as "Obamacare". Or to progressives as "liberals". They are all just shorthand.. But they do exist. And going around in circles about the "literal accuracy" of any of them at this point would be an exercise in futile triviality.

No idea what "lie" you are talking about. Are you saying that it's a lie that Ronald Reagan used the term to refer to the bullets that were described in the bill he signed?.

Will it clarify if we call them "armor piercing bullets" instead? I don't know if that would cover them all.

Keep in mind that there are two different statements: One was my proposal to ban all sale of "Cop killer bullets" to the public. This is due to the traditional reference to any bullet that would circumvent police armor (bullet vests). This because this type of bullet is designed to create great damage making the odds of survival from a direct hit to a vital organ almost non-existent, even with prompt medical intervention This might be desirable in a war where you don't want the enemy you shoot to become well enough again to come back into the fight at a later time, but not when you are just exercising your right to self-defense. These are bullets like the ones used in Parkland.

The other is the statement that "cop-killer bullets" don't exist. And that anybody who uses the term is "ignorant". Well, the term exists. And it was used by Ronald Reagan. Whom I would not consider in any way a "good president". But certainly not "ignorant"

Which of these is the "lie" you are referring to?

 

Wrong, the KTW bullets were solid projectiles and not designed to expand. Get some knowledge before you babble on.

 

Don't be lazy. Read the whole thing.

I knew that somebody on the right would make this absurd statement, and that's why I included the last paragraph.

True. And the results of this experiment can be seen in Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, .

I guess that's why they call this an "Opinion Forum", and not an "All-Knowing Forum"

I know that Logic and reasoning are not a right winger's strong suit, but they are required in order to form opinions of your own. Not so much if, as you do, you're just going to repeat wingnut-radio kool aid, though. However, and this might shock you, the fact that Hannity, Rush and Fox and Friends... all say the same thing, is normally not considered by a rational person as "knowing whether or not something is factually correct"

 

But it's not a fantasy forum.

 

The poster I responded to didn't appear to have too much of a problem using it. And I didn't have too much of a problem understanding what they meant.

In that case, let's dispense with a "definition" and just list the bullets. I would include any bullet that is designed not only for self-defense, but to actually create great damage on whatever organ it hits. If no definition is possible, then we list them. And call whatever is in that list "cop-killing bullets" or something like that.

It doesn't matter. Your statement that nobody should discuss this because we don't have a definition is ridiculous. "Definitions" are not the issue. The issue is that it's too easy for psychos to get their hands on weapons and ammo that they can use to kill a large number of people very quickly. And we need to make it as difficult as we can for them.

 

Uh, that's all bullets. What an absolutely ridiculous post the above is.

 

I remember how I used to repeat that to Republicans at the time. It doesn't matter if they come from a deranged individual or not. The fact is that the term exists.

Pretty much like Trump suffers a mental illness and keeps making up words like "big-league" and "covfefe" The fact that he's also a crazy derange individual does not preclude the fact that the words are now real.

 

All of the proposals presented by yourself were indeed read. None of which changes the fact that they would never pass constitutional muster.

Exceedingly rare circumstances and situations that do nothing to present an overall demonstrable pattern of behavior. The above incidents are no more indicative of a pattern, than sexual assault suspects being male indicates the majority of males are rapists.

And pray tell, exactly what logic and reasoning was utilized on the part of yourself to conclude anything that has been presented by yourself, is either factually correct, or sound policy?

 

Thus amounting to a complete and total prohibition of all ammunition that is currently produced. Therefore the proposal is devoid of any merits in being discussed at all.

Legislative restrictions are meaningless without proper definitions.

Then remove these individuals from the equation entirely. Confine them to the proper facilities for the duration of their lives, so that they can no longer pose any threat to society. That is the only course of action that will actually have any chance of accomplishing what is being sought by yourself.

Beyond that, there is simply no legitimate reason, none whatsoever, for these individuals to actually remain in society, when it is apparently known that they present such a danger to everyone around them.