Bill Sikes Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 @CNNPolitics LaPierre, NRA: "I call on Congress today to act immediately... to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Wouldn't this be a giant step towards the "Police State" the NRA is so paranoid about to begin with? Armed guards at schools, hospitals, shopping malls, every street corner, doesn't exactly scream "Land of the free" does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 The notion of a police state is that which uses law enforcement to takes away rights, especially social ones. What rights are taken away by adding a guard to schools? I'm pretty sure students can still freely protest and express their rights even with a guard there. I see no imposition upon rights.. fairly sure the guard would be more interested in dangerous things going on. Although, should guards be added "everywhere" as the caricature widely used in this thread would imply, the US would be "land of the bankrupt" as that's not something it can afford anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 The NRA wouldn't because they consist of law abiding citizens, and surely they logically shouldn't be punished for criminal actions nor short sighted liberal wet dreams that they can tax something out of existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 So then who decides what gets protected with guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I'm baffled by the context you ask this question with, but I'll answer it in two ways: 1) The Constitution (i.e. law) and other applicable more local laws decides. 2) The guard is there for people's safety, as in protecting their rights. Him wielding a gun at a school is clearly to protect lives. An armed guard wouldn't work for the NRA, and chances are this guard would go through a lot more scrutiny in training and backgrounds than the NRA would want. I don't see how armed guards at a school are a victory for the NRA. Given their citation on their Twitter of Israeli teachers equipping guns, it seems they would (like me) prefer teachers be armed. The guard thing obviously was a compromise for them ( ) because the concept of additional law enforcement over personal accountability is more against their line of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Here's a crazy idea....what about instead of putting an armed officer at the schools...they simply install metal detectors...don't you think that may deter quite a bit of this school-related violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Law decides? What does that mean? You say there isn't enough money to guard everything, everywhere. So how do we choose who gets guarded? And doesn't that leave the unguarded free to rape and pillage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Oh. I clearly misunderstood the question entirely, then. frack if I know what gets guarded. Schools are a pretty important place though. I just realise that no jurisdiction in the US, whether it be federal, state, county, city, etc. can afford it. That's been tried too.. it's better at deterring kid thugs with knives than a gun wielding maniac. It also comes with two costs: - It costs money to put them in every school. - It's an invasion of privacy, moreover, the fourth amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Z I just have to ask though man and wonder how much more money it would cost installing the detectors than paying a live officer to stand guard at the school... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I'm actually starting to question just a bit whether the right to keep and bear arms isn't so much an individual right as the right of the nation, as it is written in the Constitution...because it reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I'm starting to agree with those who assert rightfully in my opinion that what this amendment was added for to begin with...namely to keep England out of our business, at least at that time...no longer applies and so it really needs to be re-examined... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 It would certainly take less money to train and fund a few faculty to use a metal detector than an armed guard/officer, train them on how to do proper searches, and the immediate cost of hardware and repairs to the detector would be offset versus the guard after a period of time, but the real concern for me is the searches due to privacy invasion and the lack of knowledge faculty have of reasonable suspicion. Addressing protective measures is a tough one mainly due to the cost but also because some actually carry a cost against people's freedoms. In the US, individual freedoms are seen as inalienable -- unless a terrorists attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I'm actually starting to question just a bit whether the right to keep and bear arms isn't so much an individual right as the right of the nation, as it is written in the Constitution...because it reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". I'm starting to agree with those who assert rightfully in my opinion that what this amendment was added for to begin with...namely to keep England out of our business, at least at that time...no longer applies and so it really needs to be re-examined... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 The notion of a police state is that which uses law enforcement to takes away rights, especially social ones. What rights are taken away by adding a guard to schools? I'm pretty sure students can still freely protest and express their rights even with a guard there. I see no imposition upon rights.. fairly sure the guard would be more interested in dangerous things going on. Although, should guards be added "everywhere" as the caricature widely used in this thread would imply, the US would be "land of the bankrupt" as that's not something it can afford anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I say who cares. Amend the constitution. It's been done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Like at Kent State University? http://en.wikipedia....State_shootings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 The incidence of police killing someone illegally also happens. In this case, it was a military officer. Looks like you might have personally justified no police either. Undoing prohibition.. The amount of states that might actually vote yay to toss the second amendment.. less than 10 very likely. Of the 50 states, they need what, 38'ish states to amend the constitution.. Yeah, not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 The incidence of police killing someone illegally also happens. In this case, it was a military officer. Looks like you might have personally justified no police either. Undoing prohibition.. The amount of states that might actually vote yay to toss the second amendment.. less than 10 very likely. Of the 50 states, they need what, 38'ish states to amend the constitution.. along with a supermajority of both Congressional chambers. Yeah, not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Gun violence in the US has nothing to do with gun control laws. To this day Americans haven't been able to get to the root of their problem because of geniuses thinking the gun is the problem and not the mentality behind people who commit these crimes. Gun control has been tried in the states and failed miserably. An assault weapon ban was in place and wasn't renewed as it was shown not to have affected gun death+murder rates whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.