Nra calls for armed police officer in every school

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And our teachers, the Bishops, have suggested reasonable controls for society as a whole.
Click to expand...
Super! Until they come out with something doctrinal, Its all opinion. I will retain my right to defend myself and my family against unjust aggression as I see most responsible.
 
Debating semantics about kitchen knives or swords is pointless. Its like saying that you can use a 9mm baretta but can’t have a 357 magnum.

If people can’t arm a society then was the Revolutionary War unjust as they were all citizens and did arm themselves?
 
JMJSHJ said:
Debating semantics about kitchen knives or swords is pointless. Its like saying that you can use a 9mm baretta but can’t have a 357 magnum.

If people can’t arm a society then was the Revolutionary War unjust as they were all citizens and did arm themselves?
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Super! Until they come out with something doctrinal, Its all opinion. I will retain my right to defend myself and my family against unjust aggression as I see most responsible.
Click to expand...
The Church never stops teaching. No one has said you don’t have a right to defend your family, and that’s been repeated over and over. It seems necessary to throw it out there every so often as justification that the ‘opinions’ of our spiritual teachers can be dismissed, because it might encroach on our secular rights. They are ‘suggestions’ and viewed as a part of a ‘culture of life’, as the Bishops refer to them. While you may secure your guns properly, others are not. All rights are blended together, good and those not so good. It seems to me that safe gun control is of no consequence to a law abiding citizen, especially those of a ‘culture of life’.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The Church never stops teaching. No one has said you don’t have a right to defend your family, and that’s been repeated over and over. It seems necessary to throw it out there every so often as justification that the ‘opinions’ of our spiritual teachers can be dismissed, because it might encroach on our secular rights. They are ‘suggestions’ and viewed as a part of a ‘culture of life’, as the Bishops refer to them. While you may secure your guns properly, others are not. All rights are blended together, good and those not so good. It seems to me that safe gun control is of no consequence to a law abiding citizen, especially those of a ‘culture of life’.
Click to expand...
The problem is that “responsible gun control” always turns into an issue of control.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The Church never stops teaching. No one has said you don’t have a right to defend your family, and that’s been repeated over and over. It seems necessary to throw it out there every so often as justification that the ‘opinions’ of our spiritual teachers can be dismissed, because it might encroach on our secular rights. They are ‘suggestions’ and viewed as a part of a ‘culture of life’, as the Bishops refer to them. While you may secure your guns properly, others are not. All rights are blended together, good and those not so good. It seems to me that safe gun control is of no consequence to a law abiding citizen, especially those of a ‘culture of life’.
Click to expand...
It’s a matter of a lack of trust on the part of those who use guns for protection and for sport, although some in the latter group are in favor of safety measures and don’t see such a conflict. Many do not trust the government, particularly liberal politicians including the President. They believe that if they give an inch, the government will take away all their G-d-given rights, not only their right to bear arms. Thus they search for statistical evidence indicating gun-control regulations have not worked in the past, that the real and major problem relative to guns is that of the “bad guys”–including criminals and the mentally ill–who obtain guns illegally, and that the root cause of violence is based on the moral decay of our culture. There is more than a kernel of truth to this reasoning but the main reason remains nonetheless a political one, namely the lack of trust in (liberal) government.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And our teachers, the Bishops, have suggested reasonable controls for society as a whole.
Click to expand...
Correct. Which is why we need to look at any proposed controls via the light of Reason.

Which is exactly what we are discussing. What controls achieve the desired ends and do so in a way that is consistent with Natural Law.
 
meltzerboy said:
It’s a matter of a lack of trust on the part of those who use guns for protection and for sport, although some in the latter group are in favor of safety measures and don’t see such a conflict. Many do not trust the government, particularly liberal politicians including the President. They believe that if they give an inch, the government will take away all their G-d-given rights, not only their right to bear arms. Thus they search for statistical evidence indicating gun-control regulations have not worked in the past, that the real and major problem relative to guns is that of the “bad guys”–including criminals and the mentally ill–who obtain guns illegally, and that the root cause of violence is based on the moral decay of our culture. There is more than a kernel of truth to this reasoning but the main reason remains nonetheless a political one, namely the lack of trust in (liberal) government.
Click to expand...
People in Government should never be blindly trusted.

BUT since YOU brought it up 🙂
Can you point to one of this administrations legislative bodies that IS trustworthy?

DOJ?
State Dept?
HHS?
EPA?
DOD?
etc…
 
Honestly I do not know why there is any debate.🤷

Libs win because you have yet another governmental factor in schools. More Cops equals more taxes and more jobs.
Conservatives win because more people with guns cant be a bad thing.
lets make this happen!😃
 
kimmielittle said:
People in Government should never be blindly trusted.

BUT since YOU brought it up 🙂
Can you point to one of this administrations legislative bodies that IS trustworthy?

DOJ?
State Dept?
HHS?
EPA?
DOD?
etc…
Click to expand...
As a wise and, according to modern standards, sexist musician once said: we must learn to take our composers as we take our wives. The same might apply to the legislative bodies of government. They may not be perfect, but they’re the best we have until we choose to divorce them.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
And our teachers, the Bishops, have suggested reasonable controls for society as a whole.
Click to expand...
Wrt this statement, did Connecticut nit have sufficient “reasonable controls”? What laws could the state have put into effect that would have stopped this cowardly killer from killing the children? The laws they had in place did not stop him from murdering his mother and stealing her guns.

This is because *criminals do not respect te law. *It doesn’t matter what laws we put into place: if they can’t get assault weapons and multiple-shot magazines, they will use something else. If they can’t get guns, they will use knives or cars, as occurred in China just this week.

The question is how best to protect children, who cannot defend themselves and who are pretty much required to be in school, from being shot by an evil coward who is inteny on getting himself talked about after his death?

Will more laws stop this? *No evidence has been brought to show that this is the case. *Will armed people stop this? * Evidence has beeen brought to show that it would. *So what shoukd we do? Something for which no evidence or even logic exists will work? Or something which has been proven to help?

And as to you commentary, the fact that an Early Church Father said “some think” X does not make it so. A careful reading of all the commentaries you provided shows various interpretations, one of which is closer to mine than to yours, and not one is definitive.
 
St_Francis said:
Wrt this statement, did Connecticut nit have sufficient “reasonable controls”? What laws could the state have put into effect that would have stopped this cowardly killer from killing the children? The laws they had in place did not stop him from murdering his mother and stealing her guns.

This is because *criminals do not respect te law. *It doesn’t matter what laws we put into place: if they can’t get assault weapons and multiple-shot magazines, they will use something else. If they can’t get guns, they will use knives or cars, as occurred in China just this week.

The question is how best to protect children, who cannot defend themselves and who are pretty much required to be in school, from being shot by an evil coward who is inteny on getting himself talked about after his death?

Will more laws stop this? *No evidence has been brought to show that this is the case. *Will armed people stop this? * Evidence has beeen brought to show that it would. *So what shoukd we do? Something for which no evidence or even logic exists will work? Or something which has been proven to help?

And as to you commentary, the fact that an Early Church Father said “some think” X does not make it so. A careful reading of all the commentaries you provided shows various interpretations, one of which is closer to mine than to yours, and not one is definitive.
Click to expand...
Mental ill people don’t need a gun to commit mass murder.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
 
[ Potential mass murders stopped… by people carrying guns.

Also of interest is that mass murders are classified by how many victims die, 4 or more. Thus, if someone is stopped before killing that many people, the incident is not considered an example of mass murder.

It’s kind of ironic that as a result, the cases which the evil coward is stopped by someone who is armed before he kills very many is thus discounted altogether.](GUN WATCH: Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens)
 
meltzerboy said:
As a wise and, according to modern standards, sexist musician once said: we must learn to take our composers as we take our wives. The same might apply to the legislative bodies of government. They may not be perfect, but they’re the best we have until we choose to divorce them.
Click to expand...
Well said! :clapping:
 
The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I fully support the idea of armed guards in schools.

I also support the idea of teachers being armed as well. I’m not suggesting we just start handing out guns to teachers and saying “Here. Now you’re protected.” No. But going forward, firearms training should be integrated into teacher training right from the start. Starting when would-be teachers are freshmen in college, firearms training should be part of the curriculum. The would have to score well at the target range in order to graduate.

Once they began teaching, they would have to requalify their marksmanship skills every year just like they take continuing education courses. Requalifying would include psychological testing to ensure the teacher can keep their wits about them if they need to use their gun.

With modern technology, it would be very easy to design a gun specially made for teachers. A tiny radio receiver could be installed in the gun’s trigger mechanism. The teacher would then wear a ring equipped with a tiny radio transmitter on his/her index (trigger) finger. The gun could not fire unless it was receiving the radio signal from the teacher’s ring. This would eliminate the danger of the gun being fired if a child got ahold of it.

We live in troubled times. I’m all for turning the other cheek but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I fully support the idea of armed guards in schools.

I also support the idea of teachers being armed as well. I’m not suggesting we just start handing out guns to teachers and saying “Here. Now you’re protected.” No. But going forward, firearms training should be integrated into teacher training right from the start. Starting when would-be teachers are freshmen in college, firearms training should be part of the curriculum. The would have to score well at the target range in order to graduate.

Once they began teaching, they would have to requalify their marksmanship skills every year just like they take continuing education courses. Requalifying would include psychological testing to ensure the teacher can keep their wits about them if they need to use their gun.

With modern technology, it would be very easy to design a gun specially made for teachers. A tiny radio receiver could be installed in the gun’s trigger mechanism. The teacher would then wear a ring equipped with a tiny radio transmitter on his/her index (trigger) finger. The gun could not fire unless it was receiving the radio signal from the teacher’s ring. This would eliminate the danger of the gun being fired if a child got ahold of it.

We live in troubled times. I’m all for turning the other cheek but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget, we also need armed guards on firetrucks/ambulances, malls, theaters, etc. etc. etc.:rolleyes:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Don’t forget, we also need armed guards on firetrucks/ambulances, malls, theaters, etc. etc. etc.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Why is there such resistance to a common sense suggestion of having an armed guard at every school? Would you prefer teachers to arm themselves? Or the financing of it?
 
JMJSHJ said:
Why is there such resistance to a common sense suggestion of having an armed guard at every school? Would you prefer teachers to arm themselves? Or the financing of it?
Click to expand...
Here’s my question: How many senators/representatives that oppose armed guards at public schools (because it’s “too dangerous” or “makes no difference”) would be willing to REMOVE the armed guard at the private schools attended by THEIR children? If having armed guards is so dangerous and ineffective, let’s see the President dismiss his daughters’ Secret Service detail and the guards at their school.

Are their children worth more than any of ours?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top