Florida Approves Bill Allowing Classroom Teachers To Be Armed

Totally false, a majority of Florida 67 school boards have adopted the program.

 

Because everyone you know closes their eyes and fires randomly while waving their pistol around wildly? Why do you expect the teachers who are armed to be doing that? As though they would just start pulling the triggers on their firearms just because someone pulled the fire alarm? How would anyone so daft ever garner enough knowledge to obtain a teaching job to begin with?

Absolute dolts.

 

Law enforcement officers are shielded by the legal concept of qualified immunity, meaning they do not have to concern themselves with the negative consequences of their actions, and thus have no incentive to do better in their conduct.

Educators, by contrast, are not shielded by qualified immunity, and are held responsible for their actions.

 

Define precisely what amounts to "reasonable limits" on firearms, and why they qualify as being reasonable.

There is no constitutional right to engage in the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Therefore it can be restricted to whatever degree one wishes. That is why their are cities and counties that qualify as "dry" meaning no alcoholic beverage may be sold or consumed within their boundaries. Such would never be allowed with regard to legal firearm ownership, and indeed has been ruled unconstitutional at least twice now.

Then by all means. Do inform everyone present exactly how much ammunition any given individual in the united states, regardless of location or circumstances, actually needs at any given time.

 

The same insurance companies that are all too willing to deny coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions if the affordable care act is repealed?

 

And how exactly do you propose removing them from the equation, to ensure that they are not in the possession of those who are most likely to use them for such purposes?

 

Sorry but if the teachers are arm due to the request or invitation of the state to be arm then they are in the same boat as the police as far as immunity is concern for their actions.

 

You made it against the law to have them or to sell them in the same manner as bump stocks are not legal to have any longer.

Not too many sellers will sell illegal materials to a buyer when it is a five years or so federal crime to do so.

An for those sellers who are willing to risk that level of punishment they will not be doing it for any price some late teenager is likely to have in his pockets.

 

Untrue in Florida, that is unless the person is Deputized.

 

Well would you please tell us all why someone would need a magazine with a hundred rounds other then to killed a large number of people in a short period of time?


The state had been telling people they do not need fully auto weapons or such rifles that can launch grenades, or bump stocks or whatever.

 

And that would be ruled unconstitutional.

Besides that is no demonstrable reason for doing so, as such you basically wasting time on an issue that has already been hashed and proven unworkable in this very forum.

Maybe do some studying of what is already been posted before tossing out the same rubbish that has already been proven to be just that.

Again you fail to realize the very same magazines you are referring to are supplied stock from the factory and smaller magazines are considered aftermarket which can be a liability problem.

 

Sure the courts will not be granting them the same protections as cops when they are acting as agents of the state.

 

For the same reason people use detachable magazines, less mag changes.

However you are clearly showing your ignorance about detachable mags, anything over thirty excepting multi-chamber mags are know to produce jams and a hundred round magazine would be so heavy it would make it very difficult to aim the gun.

Incorrect private possession of fully automatic firearms and or firearms with grenade launchers is legal and many are in private possession.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

Well,what? I already mentioned my sentiments about teachers being armed in schools, so there is NO REASON for me to revisit the matter by answering a question that should have never been asked, had you read everything the was posted by me. Circular discussions resolve nothing and only muddle what has already been clarified.

 

Not in Florida, which is why the schools cover them under the schools liability policy.

You really need to get up to date as you are constantly being corrected for posting false information.

 

Yes I am sure you are a legal expert or perhaps a member of a state court so you can state such opinions as an expert.

Once more there had been all manner of limit on firearms for all of our history under our constitution.

Nor is there any need for a hundred rounds magazines and states had a long history of limiting to must smaller magazines for that matter.

 

And not answering the question clearly indicates you cannot without destroying your patently false narrative.

 

I am tempted to ask a question that is sure to ruffle your feathers; this is not a discussion based on insults, pejoratives or underhanded comments, so I will not ask the question.

 

Attempts as provocation fail miserably with a person such as me.

 

Correct.

And most of them have been overturned on appeal and more will follow.

There is no compelling need to not have one, if someone was foolish enough to buy one, however I know from experience anything over thirty is asking for a jam, which by the way is what stopped the Parkland shooter, causing him to abandon his rifle and flee MSD.

He never trained how to clear a jam and when he had a feed problem he couldn't clear it and gave up his massacre.

 

I could care less if you ask a question or not, what matters is your failing to answer a very simple question, leaving most to speculate you prefer to have active shooters be the only person armed in a school and allowed to carry out various crimes, versus being stopped as quickly as possible.

 

As does logic.

 

No, that is NOT the matter being that I answered the question long before it was asked. This cat and mouse game is boring and I refuse to play.

 

Tell us: Of the 115 or so mass shootings since 1982, how many were perpetrated with a gun that had a 50+ round magazine?
Then, demonstrate how this justifies banning all such magazines.

Tell us: Of the 115 or so mass shootings since 1982, how many were perpetrated with a gun with a bump stock?
Then, demonstrate how this justifies banning bump stocks.

 

Except that it hasn't.

Reality says otherwise.