@ruthaford_jive said:
Solution: Mandate public school teachers to not only carry, but as part of their teaching requirements train with these weapons multiple times a year to become comfortable and proficient in them. Teachers who do not want to put their student's lives first will have to look for another job or work at a private school. These school shooters are fucking cowards. They only attack people and groups they know are going to be easy targets. If they knew that every public school teacher was mandated to be protectors that can lawfully use deadly force, these already very statistically low school shootings would almost never happen.
Now let me rant about guns, because like all school shootings they become political tools to bitch about guns. The 2nd amendment exists for a reason. It does not exist for collecting guns, for the fun of shooting guns, or for hunting with guns. It exists so that if the government becomes an ACTUAL TYRANNY then the people can rise up en mass and fucking kill the tyrants and reinstate the Constitution. That's it. 17 dead people is nothing compared to millions that would be slaughtered if we (or our children) had to deal with an actual tyrannical US government. By and large, people in this country are soft and weak. They do not like to think about having to defend themselves or others in a life or death situation. Violence and death will never go away, they are inherent to the human experience, so stop cowering and hoping it will go away. It will not. Instead learn to fight, learn to protect yourself, and if you ever find yourself in the awful situation where deadly force is necessary, show them no mercy, because they will surely show you none.
Yeah sure, as soon as you pay the teachers an extra $20K per year for hazard pay and training. Also your thesis that the 2nd amendment protects people *from* the government is literally worthless. This isn't the 18th century anymore where military grade firearms and civilian firearms were literally the exact same thing. What exactly is a fucking AR-15 supposed to do against military aircraft, artillery, and main battle tanks? The shit that civilians would actually need to fight those things off are ALREADY restricted. Nobody can just go out and buy high powered AT cannons with sabot rounds, nobody can just buy surface to air missiles, or long range field guns.
@Johnny-n-Roger said:
@bigfootpart2 said:
Sandy Hook was the point of no return. If some nut murdering dozens of babies with an AR-15 couldn't get anything to change, nothing ever will. Our politicians care about the profits of the gun companies lining their pockets. They don't give a crap about our children.
You know that would require a constitutional amendment right? Even to make AR-15's illegal. Of course the government finds a way.
No it wouldn't. It is well established that the 2nd amendment doesn't cover ALL guns. Nowhere in this country is it legal for some shitheel to buy themselves an M2 Browning, a grenade launcher, or 3-inch antitank gun for their 18th birthday. The question is strictly over *which* firearms should be regulated, the argument is not over whether or not the government can regulate firearms... because they can. This is already well established in current law.
The 2nd amendment protects your right to own A firearm, not ANY firearm. An outright ban on semiautomatic rifles would not technically break the constitution, in the exact same way that restricting automatics and high-caliber weapons does not break the constitution.
Log in to comment