Nra calls for armed police officer in every school

[Padre4103]

Is America one nation under God if everyone needs to be armed to protect themselves from their fellow citizens?

Would America be more of “one nation under God” if it ignored the fact that Cain killed Abel back at the beginning of time without the benefit of a gun?

Did you know that the largest school massacre in US history occurred in Michigan and involved two dangerous weapons, a car and gasoline. 38 dead.

I am not opposed to armed police or guards in schools but everything costs money and it should be up to each community to make these decisions. It is true though that historically “Gun Free Zones” tend to only be free of good guys with guns, this ill-thought out law should change.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Would America be more of “one nation under God” if it ignored the fact that Cain killed Abel back at the beginning of time without the benefit of a gun?

Did you know that the largest school massacre in US history occurred in Michigan and involved two dangerous weapons, a car and gasoline. 38 dead.

I am not opposed to armed police or guards in schools but everything costs money and it should be up to each community to make these decisions. It is true though that historically “Gun Free Zones” tend to only be free of good guys with guns, this ill-thought out law should change.

Didn’t God protect Cain from men, after Cain killed Abel?

What does a massacre in 1927 have to do with recent events, where gunmen take up assault rifles and shoot everyone insight, and then kill themselves in some of those instances? Also, did you forget to mention the dynamite he set off with a rifle?

Smokers pay a tax, not shared by others. Why couldn’t we charge a tax on guns and ammo to help pay for these guards?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Didn’t God protect Cain from men, after Cain killed Abel?

What does a massacre in 1927 have to do with recent events, where gunmen take up assault rifles and shoot everyone insight, and then kill themselves in some of those instances? Also, did you forget to mention the dynamite he set off with a rifle?

Smokers pay a tax, not shared by others. Why couldn’t we charge a tax on guns and ammo to help pay for these guards?

Because it isn’t the people who carry guns that need the guards. If you DON’T want to arm yourself and need guards, then you should pay for it, not me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because it isn’t the people who carry guns that need the guards. If you DON’T want to arm yourself and need guards, then you should pay for it, not me.

So we should arm children? Notice the title of this thread, and the article linked, is, ‘NRA calls for armed police officer in every school.’ Has the NRA suddenly lost your support, if it costs you a bit of money?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So we should arm children? Notice the title of this thread, and the article linked, is, ‘NRA calls for armed police officer in every school.’ Has the NRA suddenly lost your support, if it costs you a bit of money?

I understand what the NRA is getting at. Liberals want to disarm everyone. So, they should then also pay to have professional armed guards everywhere to protect us against the people who don’t pay attention to the law (we call them criminals). Since they are the ones that are demanding this disarmament, they should pay for it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I understand what the NRA is getting at. Liberals want to disarm everyone. So, they should then also pay to have professional armed guards everywhere to protect us against the people who don’t pay attention to the law (we call them criminals). Since they are the ones that are demanding this disarmament, they should pay for it.

Oh, I see. You say unarmed should pay, or get armed, but when it comes to children, gun owners still shouldn’t be bothered, with controls or contributions.

 

[Moore11]

Oh, I see. You say unarmed should pay, or get armed, but when it comes to children, gun owners still shouldn’t be bothered, with controls or contributions.

It is legal gun owners that are bothered with these things. Our CCPs, our taxes, our hunting fees, our time in training. and the fact that it is legal gun owners that aren’t just protecting themselves but others as well. What does the non gun owner do above and beyond to protect the innocent? Lobby to take guns out of the hands of those who would legal protect them and children? In my district crossing guards are unpaid volunteers trusted with the life of children with something hundreds of times more deadly than guns in schools…cars. But yet it is the good community oriented volunteers who are entrusted with the safety of the political ping pong ball of “the children” yet you seem to think that it is those who want to help that should shoulder the burden of extra governmental processes and fees just to do something guaranteed to them in the constitution?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is legal gun owners that are bothered with these things. Our CCPs, our taxes, our hunting fees, our time in training. and the fact that it is legal gun owners that aren’t just protecting themselves but others as well. What does the non gun owner do above and beyond to protect the innocent? Lobby to take guns out of the hands of those who would legal protect them and children? In my district crossing guards are unpaid volunteers trusted with the life of children with something hundreds of times more deadly than guns in schools…cars. But yet it is the good community oriented volunteers who are entrusted with the safety of the political ping pong ball of “the children” yet you seem to think that it is those who want to help that should shoulder the burden of extra governmental processes and fees just to do something guaranteed to them in the constitution?

If NRA thinks guards are needed, gun owners can pay, or work with the minor inconveniences through controls, or pay up. Smokers pay taxes for their habits, gun owners can pay for theirs, both have affects on society.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If NRA thinks guards are needed, gun owners can pay, or work with the minor inconveniences through controls, or pay up. Smokers pay taxes for their habits, gun owners can pay for theirs, both have affects on society.

Gun owners don’t need guards. Smokers are a burden on the healthcare system. Unarmed people are a burden on the protection system. It is the ones who put the burden on others that should pay. You don’t want to defend yourself, then YOU pay for the extra protection.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Gun owners don’t need guards. Smokers are a burden on the healthcare system. Unarmed people are a burden on the protection system. It is the ones who put the burden on others that should pay. You don’t want to defend yourself, then YOU pay for the extra protection.

Gun owners can’t control their guns and it’s causing people to die, which is the severest burden on society.

Again, this protection is for CHILDREN. Should we arm them?

See, it’s hypocritical in my view. Gun owners don’t want any controls, that might help, and they don’t really want to help, because it’s an inconvenience to them, somehow. They remove their responsibility, because the event didn’t affect them directly. That would probably change a view, or two.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Gun owners don’t need guards. Smokers are a burden on the healthcare system. Unarmed people are a burden on the protection system. It is the ones who put the burden on others that should pay. You don’t want to defend yourself, then YOU pay for the extra protection.

It’s even simpler than that. Smoking isn’t a right. He’s been told this before. He even got rather upset when I suggested his “taxing a right is a good thing” argument would mean we could also reinstate poll taxes on minorities and also start having women pay them. Come to think of it, we could also have people start paying taxes based on their faith. After all, the government has to spend a lot of time and money to insure religious liberties aren’t being infringed upon.

 

[Estes_Bobo]

So we should arm children? Notice the title of this thread, and the article linked, is, ‘NRA calls for armed police officer in every school.’ Has the NRA suddenly lost your support, if it costs you a bit of money?

Well, you would need income to be taxed by the federal gov’t, so why do you think that people on this forum would actually have to pay for it?

 

[JMJSHJ]

Perhaps its my Canadian Culture but I don’t think its right that non gun owners should have to pay for armed guards at the school and if they do then the guards should only defend the children of the unarmed parents. Since unarmed adults are now being compared to smokers then if parents who are armed and want to protect their children then they can come to the school and defend their children too. I don’t think gun owners exclusively should be made to pay for it but I don’t think the non-gun owners should exclusively have to pay for it.

 

[Moore11]

I was just thinking. In a neighboring town there was a pretty bad incident at the school with a baseball bat. The ER was full.

Perhaps a tax on little leaguers is in order…

 

[Estes_Bobo]

What does the non gun owner do above and beyond to protect the innocent?

Nothing. No teacher hid their kids and calmly lied to the shooter about them being in gym right before they got killed. No principal and school psych attempted to stop the shooter. No non gun owner did anything to try to stop the shooter in CT. In fact, the one gun owner that could have helped was the first one killed. If she had responsibly secured her weapons and ammunition, maybe this wouldn’t have happened.

Do you live under the fantasy that I need you to protect me and mine? You need the guns to make it close. You don’t have the will/strength/brains to handle yourself so you hide behind your big guns and claim that you are protecting everyone, when, if we’re lucky, you’ll only get yourself hurt when you have to use your weapon in whatever imaginary self-defense scenario you come up with.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Nothing. No teacher hid their kids and calmly lied to the shooter about them being in gym right before they got killed. No principal and school psych attempted to stop the shooter. No non gun owner did anything to try to stop the shooter in CT. In fact, the one gun owner that could have helped was the first one killed. If she had responsibly secured her weapons and ammunition, maybe this wouldn’t have happened.

Do you live under the fantasy that I need you to protect me and mine? You need the guns to make it close. You don’t have the will/strength/brains to handle yourself so you hide behind your big guns and claim that you are protecting everyone, when, if we’re lucky, you’ll only get yourself hurt when you have to use your weapon in whatever imaginary self-defense scenario you come up with.

You do know that handguns are used several million times per year to prevent crimes, right? There are these things called facts. You should learn a few.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s even simpler than that. Smoking isn’t a right. He’s been told this before. He even got rather upset when I suggested his “taxing a right is a good thing” argument would mean we could also reinstate poll taxes on minorities and also start having women pay them. Come to think of it, we could also have people start paying taxes based on their faith. After all, the government has to spend a lot of time and money to insure religious liberties aren’t being infringed upon.

Smoking is a freedom. Also, God gave man dominion over every seed bearing plant. No where did He create a ‘holy’ weapon, such as a sword, or gun. God did not guarantee ‘rights’, or ‘freedoms’ under any government. Man is demanding that of man.

No one ‘got upset,’ with the exception of gun right advocates, who are faced with controls, and possible bans.

Children died and people want something done. Those things being suggested won’t affect the law abiding citizen, but advocates minimize those deaths to grasp to every little ‘freedom’ associated with their guns. We have a militia. The government’s already in control, and the days of having to depend on the gun for food are almost over for everyone.

Gun control advocates blame the ‘culture’ of death and then yell ‘gun rights’, further advancing the culture they blame, and minimizing the deaths of those victims.

When one tries to have a constructive discussion, many cross lines to shut down such talk. That only works on these forums. Nationally the debate goes on and the majority see no problem with ‘controls.’ With some of what I’ve seen on these forums, you should count your blessings. If the lawmakers had to consider these ‘discussions’, you’d probably be facing a lot of bans.

 

[Moore11]

Smoking is a freedom. Also, God gave man dominion over every seed bearing plant…

So now it is your contention that a freedom is the God given right to smoke pot and snort coke?

ahhhh the corners we paint ourselves into when we just refuse to accept facts.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Smoking is a freedom. Also, God gave man dominion over every seed bearing plant. No where did He create a ‘holy’ weapon, such as a sword, or gun. God did not guarantee ‘rights’, or ‘freedoms’ under any government. Man is demanding that of man.

No one ‘got upset,’ with the exception of gun right advocates, who are faced with controls, and possible bans.

Children died and people want something done. Those things being suggested won’t affect the law abiding citizen, but advocates minimize those deaths to grasp to every little ‘freedom’ associated with their guns. We have a militia. The government’s already in control, and the days of having to depend on the gun for food are almost over for everyone.

Gun control advocates blame the ‘culture’ of death and then yell ‘gun rights’, further advancing the culture they blame, and minimizing the deaths of those victims.

When one tries to have a constructive discussion, many cross lines to shut down such talk. That only works on these forums. Nationally the debate goes on and the majority see no problem with ‘controls.’ With some of what I’ve seen on these forums, you should count your blessings. If the lawmakers had to consider these ‘discussions’, you’d probably be facing a lot of bans.

The Church teaches that one has a moral right, and a grave moral duty, to protect one’s life and the lives of those they are responsible for.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church teaches that one has a moral right, and a grave moral duty, to protect one’s life and the lives of those they are responsible for.

The Church teaching is being interpreted through a biased eye. The specific passage you reference speaks of those with legimate authority have a grave moral duty. This does not mean a person is not obligated to defend, as they can. It also does not mean there is a specific tool of defense. The same passage speaks of limits in defense, and with the specific language of those with legitimate authority, it seems to limit an armed society walking our streets. Reading the same chapter, we see the rules for capital punishment, but gun rights advocates are singling out one part to use as their Church condoned rights to go beyond the teaching.

One could say that there is a moral duty to support controls, which are another form of defense.