Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is anecdotal bs. One overwhelmed guard does not prove anything. Columbine teaches us that the guards we choose should be police officer class in training and physical capabilities. Some old war vet with a carry permit is not what I'm envisioning. Ancillary benefit: Other predators are put on notice also. Say for example certain teachers or janitors or whoever. They might think twice about things with a security presence in the area. Also, in the event of a fire or tornado or earthquake, or plane crash or gas explosion or what have you, 2 security guards in place can facilitate execution of emergency procedures. Lives could be saved. Other riff raff such as homeless vagrants in the urban areas will also shy away from schools when they know they are under surveillance. And if some punk student gets out of line, there is someone around to help curtail any extreme behaviors.
And armed guards at malls and other public gatherings? Def. Yes. I'm good with that. Can't have enough protection from the sociopaths and the brigands. Again, the thugs and the shoplifters and the vagrants and the druggies will tend to stay away from areas with a known armed security presence.
I think we are underestimating how much good comes from the watchful eye of trained and armed security. Adding armed and trained citizens would be even better, but let's start with basic security.
Interesting. Your desire for freedom looks an awful lot like an armed police state.
bloomberg loves that "fire" in a crowded theater example. thats fine and all but it takes more than a cute example to give up consititionally protected rights. government isnt our friend. more government makes us less free, handing over our power to the government hurts us. i know that nobody wants to listen to this during good times but if you cede your rights during good times, they wont be there during the bad times (and bad times are guaranteed to come eventually, not necessarily in your lifetime but very possible). i went to a funeral recently for a guy who dug two bunkers in the ground to protect his family from the nazis. so it wasnt so long ago that a guy like me had grown up in a nice safe place only one day to find most of the people he knew murdered and his life in danger every minute. those people never thought it would happen just like most of us think it wont happen to us. it always happens to someone, its happening to many people around the world today. we arent immune. everything we have can disappear very fast.
Except the anti-govt. types on C.D. are now turning to Big Brother to protect schools. Weird how you all p*ss your pants and turn to Daddy when things go bad (9/11, economic collapse, school shootings)
THE MILITIA CLAUSEThe Second Amendment contains two clauses, the Militia Clause (A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State) and the Right to Arms Clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed). It's customary in Constitutional Law to point out that the second clause is controlled by the first clause. This is expressed technically by saying that "the independent clause is prefaced by a dependent phrase supportive of a structuralist interpretation." You may have to go back to the lecture on constitutional interpretation to review what structuralism is, but as a reminder, it has to do with seeing the Constitution as a living document, a guide to social order, a vision or mission statement. Structuralist interpretation always looks for the good for the whole system of society, so security of a free state is more important than the right of the people. The syntax involves what some people call "reconstructed logic" (making sense out of what doesn't make sense) in that a dependent or subordinate clause is more important than an independent or main clause. Scholars such as Kates (1983) and Levinson (1989) have referred to this interpretation in Constitutional Law as a "national embarrassment."
Read more at the link above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
How do you feel about distributing pamphlets declaring the draft to be unconstitutional? Because that what that "fire in a crowded theater" case was really about. (And in case you missed it, Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that distributing such pamphlets was akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and thus not protected by the First Amendment. Fortunately that case is no longer good law.)
You're trying to reinvent the wheel. Holmes was writing for a unanimous court and the ruling in the Schenck case was particular to the Espionage Act of 1917 and WWI.
Quote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
While the ruling initially applies to FALSELY yelling fire in a theater it goes on to say that in every case the decision should be based on whether or not words present a clear and present danger and Congress has a right to prevent the substantive evils the words would bring about, thus giving Congress the ability to limit rights when they present a clear and present danger, which the current NRA/gun nut interpretation of the 2nd Amendment run amok does, as highlighted by the mass shootings using high capacity magazines and weapons that can fire several hundred rounds per minute.
I'm not saying take guns away from gun owners. I'm saying have some limits on the types of weapons, ammo and capacity that have no place anywhere but in a war zone. Same as the limits, for example, that are in place on 1st Amendment rights.
Last edited by bobd04; 01-04-2013 at 07:27 AM..
Reason: To add quote
Except the anti-govt. types on C.D. are now turning to Big Brother to protect schools. Weird how you all p*ss your pants and turn to Daddy when things go bad (9/11, economic collapse, school shootings)
its funny how liberals think they are such geniuses with ridiculous points such as the one above. the government forces us to pay property taxes to provide for public schools, police, etc. we are not given a choice. so its not hypocritical to expect government to provide security in those schools. we are working within the system that we are forced to work with.
its heartless to pretend that these 20 children are the only people that died that day and ignoring all the people that have died since. every murder of an innocent is a tragedy, including but not limited to those children. if we are to take action, we should do so for the thousands who are murdered and it should be smart and reasonable action.
This is anecdotal bs. One overwhelmed guard does not prove anything. Columbine teaches us that the guards we choose should be police officer class in training and physical capabilities. Some old war vet with a carry permit is not what I'm envisioning. Ancillary benefit: Other predators are put on notice also. Say for example certain teachers or janitors or whoever. They might think twice about things with a security presence in the area. Also, in the event of a fire or tornado or earthquake, or plane crash or gas explosion or what have you, 2 security guards in place can facilitate execution of emergency procedures. Lives could be saved. Other riff raff such as homeless vagrants in the urban areas will also shy away from schools when they know they are under surveillance. And if some punk student gets out of line, there is someone around to help curtail any extreme behaviors.
And armed guards at malls and other public gatherings? Def. Yes. I'm good with that. Can't have enough protection from the sociopaths and the brigands. Again, the thugs and the shoplifters and the vagrants and the druggies will tend to stay away from areas with a known armed security presence.
I think we are underestimating how much good comes from the watchful eye of trained and armed security. Adding armed and trained citizens would be even better, but let's start with basic security.
The "guard" at Columbine was a 15 year veteran of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department. Ergo, he was exactly what you think should be present in all schools, yet he was unable to stop the tragedy from occurring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
ill let you track down the stats. im not sure if its right to take away freedoms to improve the stats. when it comes to crime, i think there are much greater factors involved than access to firearms. i know that some of the highest crime areas have some of the strictest gun laws. sure, many come in from other areas. but im not willing to give up my access to guns because of the high crime rate in camden.
I've posted the stats so many times it is getting tiresome, yet you want to keep trotting out the "states with strict laws have some of the highest crime rates". Prove it. I've posted the nationally compiled violent crime rate stats by state. Of the 16 "most dangerous" states, 13 of them (including all of the top five) have among the laxest gun laws in the nation.
Also, I fail to see how anything that has been discussed in what is now several threads on this topic rises to the level of, "taking away rights". I asked this question of "cyborg" when he was trotting through here and I will ask it of you...
Explain to me how a national registry of firearms, ending the ability for straw purchases and unchecked private transactions both during and outside of gun shows limits your rights as a private firearm owner in anyway, shape or form.
Virtually every "expert" agrees that such a policy would have a huge impact on the availability of "crime guns". The gun lobby responds that it will "limit freedom" but that can't really explain how. Ask it on a gun forum and they will all start to respond with threats of siezure and UN troops. So, can you tell me how the above would actually impact you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
He wasn't just overwhelmed, he wasn't a guard; that is, he was a cop with a gun assigned to the school, but he was a "community relations officer" and not on guard duty. Furthermore, he wasn't actually there when the shooting started; he was eating his lunch nearby (since he wasn't a guard, no need for him to have his duties covered at all times)
The "there were armed guards at Columbine" story is just propaganda.
Propaganda? There was an armed police officer assigned to the school. He was on campus when the attack began. Yes, he was eating his lunch, but he was doing it on campus near an area where "trouble makers" hung out to smoke. He responded to the janitors call about a gunman in less then one minute and confronted Harris on his way INTO the school, but was unable to stop him. This is the exact setup Marc and the NRA think will work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan
The fact is that these incidents are extremely rare. There is a 99.99% chance that no shots will ever be fired on the school your kid attends. I think all of this is just overreaction. It was a terrible thing in CT but people really need to stop dwelling on it.
All of these proposals are very reactionary and short sighted. The reality is that nothing needs to be changed and things like these will always happen occasionally.
I agree wholeheartedly, this is all purely reactionary. What I don't understand is the twisted logic involved. When these things occurs, the first thing the pro-gun folks trot out is how rare they are and that "guns are just tools", we shouldn't restrict rights over rare incidents, blah, blah, blah. They also vehemently argue that police are generally ineffective at preventing crime hence the need for citizens to be privately armed.
Yet, their solution here is to put an armed guard/officer into every school. If the events are so rare that the idea of even talking about gun control is ludicrous in this context and if police officers aren't very good at stopping crime, necessitating citizens to have guns, then what exactly are they accomplishing other then spending a lot of money for a false sense of security?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
bloomberg loves that "fire" in a crowded theater example. thats fine and all but it takes more than a cute example to give up consititionally protected rights. government isnt our friend. more government makes us less free, handing over our power to the government hurts us. i know that nobody wants to listen to this during good times but if you cede your rights during good times, they wont be there during the bad times (and bad times are guaranteed to come eventually, not necessarily in your lifetime but very possible). i went to a funeral recently for a guy who dug two bunkers in the ground to protect his family from the nazis. so it wasnt so long ago that a guy like me had grown up in a nice safe place only one day to find most of the people he knew murdered and his life in danger every minute. those people never thought it would happen just like most of us think it wont happen to us. it always happens to someone, its happening to many people around the world today. we arent immune. everything we have can disappear very fast.
I have written novels on this board about the various interpretations of the Second, limits on rights in general and what the original intent was. While I find those discussions very interesting, they are ultimately inconsequential. Regardless of original intent, the Second has become interpreted to be a personal right to possessing a firearm. At the same time though, it has also been interpreted that there can be limitations placed upon that right as there are with all rights.
Therefore a "ban" would be unconstitutional at least in the case of "common arms" such as handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles. So, what we are talking about is the degree of limitation and control in terms of exercising that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalfFull
Interesting. Your desire for freedom looks an awful lot like an armed police state.
Amazing isn't it. The people who most often scream about taxation, spending and the ineffectual efforts of police are the first ones who want to create a police state in exchange for being able to have their guns and carry them wherever they want. Both Marc and Captain have written volumes extolling how ridiculous it is that cops in suburban districts pull down high salaries and benefits. Now that we are talking about guns, suddenly they want to hire 2,500 police officers to sit in schools and guard against what they have claimed in other threads to be "exceedingly rare occurrences". Amazing how quick they are willing to spend $250,000,000 a year of "their money".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
its heartless to pretend that these 20 children are the only people that died that day and ignoring all the people that have died since. every murder of an innocent is a tragedy, including but not limited to those children. if we are to take action, we should do so for the thousands who are murdered and it should be smart and reasonable action.
Bravo, that's exactly what we need to do and that starts with better legislation and regulation regarding the sale and registry of firearms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
