Good guy with a gun story: http://washingtonpress.com/2018/02/2...n-texas-watch/
Good guy with a gun story: http://washingtonpress.com/2018/02/2...n-texas-watch/
More editorial than story. The lesson I took away from it was if the police train their weapons on you and tell you to drop the gun, you should drop the gun.Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Agreed.
Some situations transcend ideology.
If I may go back a little and pick Alan’s brain ....and anyone else with an opinion. I’m truly interested because it’s apparent this issue is going to back debated in the political arena which could result in action. I know that’s almost unbelievable given our gridlock lately but here goes...
Alan stated, “I'm not sure that there is a "national effort to arm teachers" although I am aware of the popular notion that those teachers who are willing and able should not have their right to effectively defend themselves stripped away the moment they enter school property. If we're going to argue, we should frame our positions properly, don't you think?”
I’d like to focus on this for a minute. I have people I converse with who are very strict 2nd amendment interpretists...and the above statement would ring true with them, but .....
If we authorize these willing and able teachers to carry concealed, why shouldn’t we authorize janitors, secretaries, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, contractors, Coke delivery persons, truck drivers, to also carry concealed?
In Pennsylvania 18 year olds are permitted to openly carry handguns and long rifles on their person. If my son is an 18 year old senior in high school who doesn’t have an activity that precludes him from separating from his handgun or rifle.....why shouldn’t he be permitted to carry one openly in the school. Should any of these willing and able people be “stripped” of their right to effectively defend themselves?
You see where this can be headed right?
I see where you're taking it, yes. The answer is to restrict weapons in schools to authorized personnel. That's the way it works in private industry as a condition of employment, let's let federal, state and local government entities do the same thing by eliminating the blanket restriction and criminal charges.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Choosing who is authorized and who is not.....sounds like gun control.
Yes it does, but not by the government which can only enforce it's edicts with force. Condition of employment is an agreement between two parties, and restricting everyone to a legal age of perhaps 21 (although the government loaned me the use of one of their M16's at 18, I understand they still do) would keep most students at bay.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Bullet proof body blanket for elementary school children. I’m not kidding. What?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1823308
Forget school supplies, get your kids a bullet proof vest.
May I add a query to WS's question. By Alan's post I understand that it is recognized that the employer is deciding rights and privileges of its employees that impact the common good. Has industry then been assigned decision=making governing the common good or should it be'government by the people for the people'? BTW, I am not specifying any level of gov't - municipal, state or federal.
By the response of the companies who are withdrawing their support of the NRA, is there an indication that industry is making the decision and advising the NRA to go back to its roots of concern for the common good of responsible oversight of gun use?
As Cicero said, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote