We protect gold with armed guards....

2,787 Views | 10 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by NatePait94
Amphibious
How long do you want to ignore this user?
....so I guess gold must be more valuable than children. Pitiful.


I will never understand why we dont have multiple armed officers/guards at every school across America. Should be federal law.
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly. And allow teachers/principals to carry. To deter criminals, they must know that their potential "targets" are or are likely armed.

But by the "logic" of the communist Left, if banks (or homeowners/etc) announce to the world that they are not armed, that would "better protect them" and "make them safer".

Criminals will always be armed. All gun control accomplishes is to disarm the decent, law-abiding people of society, putting them at the mercy of the criminal element in society. This is why the areas with the most gun control (e.g. D.C., Chicago) have the highest rate of violent crime. Criminals in those areas know that their potential victims are much less likely to be armed.

The fundamental issue is that everyone has a God-given right to self-defense. Look at it from a macro level for perspective. Nations arm themselves for defense. Would anyone make the argument that the USA must disarm, and doing so would "make us safer" from the threat of other nations?

Even gun control advocates don't argue for disarming the police or government. They only want common citizens disarmed, and the elite and government to have a monopoly on power. And Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg have armed security guards. They just want the "peasants" disarmed.

And the gun control advocates have no interest in "protecting the children". These are the same people who champion the mass murder of unborn children (abortion), with 600,000 plus killed per year in the United States. It's all about power, with some groups wanting to disarm their perceived enemies, while they and their allies remain armed.
Amphibious
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cant say I agree with teachers and principals. Only those with a badge and uniform. It's get very confusing for law enforcement if anyone else but uniformed authorities has a gun. Besides, I see too many scenarios where a teacher can have their gun wrestled from them. Not so easy against trained law enforcement.
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amphibious said:

cant say I agree with teachers and principals. Only those with a badge and uniform. It's get very confusing for law enforcement if anyone else but uniformed authorities has a gun. Besides, I see too many scenarios where a teacher can have their gun wrestled from them. Not so easy against trained law enforcement.
Teachers and principals can be trained just as much, or better, than a police officer or the glorified security guards that are at many schools.

What makes a school different from any other place in society where "common" citizens are allowed to open or concealed carry firearms? "Common" citizens are open or concealed carrying firearms all over the place -- in churches, restaurants, etc.

The fundamental principle of the Second Amendment is that all citizens have the right to own and carry firearms. For anyone who does not know, where it states in the text of the Second Amendment that we have "the right to keep and bear arms", the term "bear" means to carry a firearm on your person.

Is a teacher or principal any more likely to have their firearm wrestled and taken from them than any other citizen in any other location in society, such as someone open or concealed carrying in a church or restaurant (which I'm sure almost never happens, by the way)? I would say that a teacher or principal is much less likely to have that take place. Has there ever been a case where a security guard or police officer at a school had their gun taken from them by a student? Maybe once in a blue moon, or never. The potential for that problem is extremely small, and far outweighed by the good that would come from allowing teachers/principals to be armed.



Amphibious
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GuerrillaPack said:

Amphibious said:

cant say I agree with teachers and principals. Only those with a badge and uniform. It's get very confusing for law enforcement if anyone else but uniformed authorities has a gun. Besides, I see too many scenarios where a teacher can have their gun wrestled from them. Not so easy against trained law enforcement.
Teachers and principals can be trained just as much, or better, than a police officer or the glorified security guards that are at many schools.

What makes a school different from any other place in society where "common" citizens are allowed to open or concealed carry firearms? "Common" citizens are open or concealed carrying firearms all over the place -- in churches, restaurants, etc.

The fundamental principle of the Second Amendment is that all citizens have the right to own and carry firearms. For anyone who does not know, where it states in the text of the Second Amendment that we have "the right to keep and bear arms", the term "bear" means to carry a firearm on your person.

Is a teacher or principal any more likely to have their firearm wrestled and taken from them than any other citizen in any other location in society, such as someone open or concealed carrying in a church or restaurant (which I'm sure almost never happens, by the way)? I would say that a teacher or principal is much less likely to have that take place. Has there ever been a case where a security guard or police officer at a school had their gun taken from them by a student? Maybe once in a blue moon, or never. The potential for that problem is extremely small, and far outweighed by the good that would come from allowing teachers/principals to be armed.



I'm sorry, but most females are middle aged females that are scared to touch guns...so um NO! I have dated 3 teachers in my life and I cringe at the thought of them being the first line of defense....one of those girls would accidentally shoot someone or probably quit before they'd carry a gun. Yall are just listening to stupid politicians and the NRA that are behind that beyond stupid idea.
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Amphibious said:

GuerrillaPack said:

Amphibious said:

cant say I agree with teachers and principals. Only those with a badge and uniform. It's get very confusing for law enforcement if anyone else but uniformed authorities has a gun. Besides, I see too many scenarios where a teacher can have their gun wrestled from them. Not so easy against trained law enforcement.
Teachers and principals can be trained just as much, or better, than a police officer or the glorified security guards that are at many schools.

What makes a school different from any other place in society where "common" citizens are allowed to open or concealed carry firearms? "Common" citizens are open or concealed carrying firearms all over the place -- in churches, restaurants, etc.

The fundamental principle of the Second Amendment is that all citizens have the right to own and carry firearms. For anyone who does not know, where it states in the text of the Second Amendment that we have "the right to keep and bear arms", the term "bear" means to carry a firearm on your person.

Is a teacher or principal any more likely to have their firearm wrestled and taken from them than any other citizen in any other location in society, such as someone open or concealed carrying in a church or restaurant (which I'm sure almost never happens, by the way)? I would say that a teacher or principal is much less likely to have that take place. Has there ever been a case where a security guard or police officer at a school had their gun taken from them by a student? Maybe once in a blue moon, or never. The potential for that problem is extremely small, and far outweighed by the good that would come from allowing teachers/principals to be armed.



I'm sorry, but most females are middle aged females that are scared to touch guns...so um NO! I have dated 3 teachers in my life and I cringe at the thought of them being the first line of defense....one of those girls would accidentally shoot someone or probably quit before they'd carry a gun. Yall are just listening to stupid politicians and the NRA that are behind that beyond stupid idea.




There are female police officers. There are also millions of female regular citizens who carry firearms. Are they just going around accidentally shooting people? Where is the evidence for this? This is an irrational fear of something that is not even happening.

Also, there are plenty of male teachers and principals in schools.

I'm not talking about forcing any teacher to carry a firearm. I'm just talking about allowing teachers/principals/etc to be armed, if they wish. Then potential criminals will at least have to consider the possibility that they will meet armed resistance, and this will act as a big deterrent.

What's stupid is to deny any citizen their Second Amendment right. And anywhere that policy is implemented, it's a signal to potential criminals that you have disarmed sitting ducks. I think the NRA is too "soft" in defending our gun rights. And I'm certainly not listening to politicians for any ideas, as both parties are traitors to the American people, and are puppets of powerful elites who have sold this nation out to the globalist/communist NWO agenda.
cowboypack02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am a firm believer that an armed society is a polite society. I think we make 2 mistakes that are pretty evident in all of there school shootings.

The first is that we glorify the hell out of the shooter, and by that I mean we splash his name and picture all over the place and talk about who he is non-stop. The fellow from FL is on video talking about he was gonna be famous as a school shooter before he shot up the school. That should stop. No pictures, no name, no nothing to do to identify the shooter.

The second mistake is that our schools by and large are a target rich areas with no protection at all. Think about how much effort goes into protecting anything of any value. People who want to inflict damage go to places that they can do that. If we protecting the schools with a couple of armed guards that would do wonders for deterring this.

Just my 2 cents
NCSUBill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Take a look at a small town in Ga that requires all homeowners to be armed. The crime rate has drastically been reduced and the has been 1 murder in aprox. 20 years. Clearly, the police department does not go house to house inspecting firearms and you can basically ignore the law, but what criminal would want to take that chance?
NatePait94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most Schools have one or two SRO Officers on campus at all times.

My grandmother was a teacher for 40 years and she regularly practices with her firearms. Wonderful woman. Scares the hell out of me sometimes.
We're all Red on the inside. Some of us are just Blue in the face, and they're sick.
PackBacker07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We also have a track-able system across state lines where you need to be registered and carry a license for vehicles. Why not guns? There are a lot of facets to this issue, to be sure.
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackBacker07 said:

We also have a track-able system across state lines where you need to be registered and carry a license for vehicles. Why not guns? There are a lot of facets to this issue, to be sure.
A license is defined as "a permit from an authority to own or use something." Per the Second Amendment to the Constitution, we have the right to own and carry firearms. You don't need permission from the government to do something that you have the right to do. Otherwise it is not a "right", and is something that the government can deny to you or take away. Concealed-carry permits, by the way, are unconstitutional for this simple reason.

And requiring registration to own a firearm would only be done for the purpose of future confiscation of firearms, taxation, or some other form of control. The primary reason for registration of a car is so that the government can tax people for the ownership of their property. And government should not be taxing, controlling, or confiscating our firearms.

The government has no right to force people to disclose if they own a firearm or how many. They also don't have the right to tax people for the property they own, but that's another subject. Forced registration of firearms would effectively be a violation of the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

And we already have de-facto registration of firearms, in part. It has been exposed that the Federal government is keeping databases of firearm owners and the guns they own. They are supposed to destroy the records of background checks after a certain period of time (~3 years?), but they are keeping that information in violation of the law.

Background checks are also a violation of the Second Amendment. Everyone has the right to own and carry firearms. The only way you should be denied your right to own a firearm is if you are convicted of a crime and are serving a prison sentence -- ie, currently inside the prison. Once you are released from prison, you theoretically have "paid your debt to society" and "no longer deemed a threat to society", and you should be able to defend yourself by owning firearms just like everyone else.
NatePait94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I love you.
We're all Red on the inside. Some of us are just Blue in the face, and they're sick.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.