A fair and pertinent question. There would need to be a protocol, and there are ways to deal with that. Have a plan where a teacher can't leave his class to engage a shooter until he knows that his kids are in another class first.

Having the military in the school, would also eliminate that concern.

CT did something pretty aggressive after Sandy Hook, right? Can you still buy an AR-15 in CT?

The courts have long held that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute. Which is a good thing, I don't want Maxine Waters buying a nuke.

Remember that town hall CNN sponsored after the Kate Steinle killing, when grieving family members of those who had been murdered by illegal aliens were able to question Democrat lawmakers who had voted in favor of sanctuary cities and open borders?

Neither do I.

Sounds like a recipe for total chaos and inaction. The whole idea is so ridiculously stupid I can't even believe people are talking about it. Trump's remarks yesterday were laughable. I can't believe he really said you might have a teacher who had won a shooting contest so give them a bonus to carry in school.

Hell, even in FL a veteran police officer couldn't engage the shooter. You think a social studies teacher is just going to go all Rambo?

Even worse is taking the wrong actions...it's makes people think something has been done and they get complacent.

Probably because illegal immigrants commit much less violent crime than the population as a whole. It's not a top of mind issue like school shootings and mass shootings.

Because everyone is doing such a fine job raising their kids.

Interesting question. From a purely 2A perspective civilians should also have artillery and F22s. 2A as interpreted in Heller -v- DC, allows for firearms and allows for types of firearms for self defense. So based on this we should have access to full auto too. But we don't.


That school SRO failed his charges, those kids. Some of those kids acted with far higher guts and integrity than did that SRO.

A lot of different people and organizations dropped the ball on Parkland.

NUMEROUS opportunities to prevent that tragedy where there, some ignored, some not followed through.

Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't. But I can guarantee, with out a doubt, that if they weren't armed the answer is "Wouldn't"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re doing what every other ideologue does. Only talking about one side of the issue. Yes, Spence, there are useless cops out there. That doesn’t mean that police don’t add value. Similarly, armed guards in school can not prevent every death. But they might well save lives.

When evaluating an idea, you consider the pros and the cons. Not just the cons. You never learned that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless an idea is 100% guaranteed to work in every conceivable situation, the thoughtless ideologues won’t consider it. And because no idea is foolproof, nothing gets done. You cannot talk to these people, it’s not possible. Liberals won’t concede that armed guards might be a godsend in some situations, conservatives won’t concede that we might be better off without bump stocks and high capacity magazines. It’s not possible to talk to these people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's probably worth noting here that a big reason access to full auto firearms was restricted is because Congress at the time was concerned with their increasing use in violent crime. (and taxes)

It's also probably worth noting here that a big reason you rarely ever see full auto firearms used in violent crime today is because they're hard to get.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because I don't weigh both sides of an argument in a post doesn't mean I don't hold them in my mind.

That being said, when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1...

It is also worth noting that the vast significant majority of gun owners would not use them maliciously yet those same owners are being told they have blood on their hands in an Orwellian two minutes of hate (much longer actually).

There are enough bad guys (that have no intention of following the law) with fully automatic weapons - in addition to those with semi-auto - to be concerned with them.

John, there have only been 2 homicides with legally held fully automatic weapons since they were controlled, the records are not easy to access. I was wondering how many with illegally held automatics?
No being a lawyer of any type, i wonder why if the 2nd A gives you the right to keep and bear arms you cannot have bombs, cannons, fully automatic weapons, etc.

Blood on their hands is a bit of hyperbole, it may be fairer to say some gun owners are being told they don't need certain weapons or shouldn't have certain weapons.

So why don't they then? Crime with legally obtained full auto is statistically not even relevant. I haven't seen a stat on illegal full auto weapons but if it's out there it's pretty rare also.

Those were victims of this tragedy asking him that. CNN gave them a forum to do it. Not sure Faux news did the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some of the more basic readings of 2A would allow that, as well as Constitutional Carry. Nor am I a lawyer.

There are probably more illegally configured full auto than legal NFA firearms. That people willing to pay much more and jump thru more hoops can get on occasion.

They are out there but yes the numbers are low, confirmed usage is low, but they are out there.

"You're jumping to conclusions"

Nope. Responding to your constant, consistent thoughtlessness.

"when the negatives outweigh the positives 10:1"

What are the positives? What might the positives have been, if there was an armed soldier at Sandy Hook and at this school?

You see the lack of perfect guarantee, as a downside. There was no downside to having the useless cop in FL. There was no upside because he failed, but there was no downside, wither. He didn't make it worse.

Let's make it simple Spence. If I propose to put an armed soldier in the schools your kids go to, do you think your kids are more safe, or less safe?

No go onto Rachael Maddow's website and paste her answer as a response...

You are descending further and further into the intellectual abyss.

Not sure why this matters to the discussion.

But CNN doesn't let abortion survivors confront Democrats who take money from Planned Parenthood. Nor does CNN let Kate Steinle's family confront Democrats who advocate open borders and sanctuary policies. Only victims whose cause is sympathetic to liberals, get to confront their adversaries on CNN.

Nothing is going to be perfect and I don't think most people have any issue with a trained officer providing school security, but as we've seen even this has to be part of a more comprehensive plan.

I'd assume that the killer in FL very knew the school had armed security and this did nothing to deter his intentions.

Spence, you actually wrote a word "fairer"🤡. Have you been hanging out with Wayne too much?

Also ,it would be fair to say a veteran police officer wouldn't engage the shooter. You used the word couldn't,which is a stretch if speaking truthfully.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People who are suicidal aren't going to be deterred by an armed guard. But they can be stopped by an armed guard.

You don't know what he knew, yet you leap to the conclusion which supports your side's ideology, and I for one am shocked, you never do that.

Multi-tasking.

I almost changed couldn't to wouldn't but thought it was pretty much the same thing considering it was his sworn duty.

Oh jeeze.

its funny Police shoot kill unarmed suspect The right supports them blue lives matter

Cop doesn't engage school shooter The right , his lack of action was pure cowardice


How does one choose who to protect out of a school of 3000 kids

who knows why he did what he did? was he covering and securing the wave of kids near him panicking as they ran by ,, did he know where the shooter was? was he waiting for back up like all officer are trained to do? or is the right pissed at him because it blew a whole in the good guy with a gun Fairy tale they have been promoting the past several
years

and if on Cue fox say's it Trump repeats it Trump suggests Florida officer a 'coward'

There is this unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no evidence that armed persons in schools would prevent mass shootings. Of course, the same gun controllers are silent when asked if there is any proof that gun free zones prevent mass shootings.

I thought I'd take a quick look online and found many articles and documentations of armed citizens ending or preventing mass shootings. Many of the armed citizens had military or police training or general gun training, one in the brief list linked here was a school principle. Most were not in schools, but the examples can easily be applied to schools. The article counters the idea which gun controllers pooh pooh, that some form of trained armed security as Trump proposes would not be effective. There are other articles and examples on the net, but I just posted this one from WAPO so that it could not be discounted as right wing propaganda:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ab592191b7af

Explain how it's different, other than the lack of sympathy that liberals have for their cause?

Is that really what you meant to write? If so, I am perplexed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good catch. Fixed it. Thanks. I guess my eyes was goin' crazy when I made the typo. Meant to say . . . unverified belief by gun controllers that there is no evidence that armed persons in schools would [rather than "would not"] prevent mass shootings.

Ok, got it. Can you provide evidence that armed persons would prevent mass shootings? There are at least two cases where armed persons at schools didn't, let alone assassinations by snipers, etc.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device