@Johnny-n-Roger: 'MURICA!

Christ, that would be awesome to own a tank. Of course the cost, effort and special considerations required to actually pull that off are no small feat... regardless of how technically legal it is.

@Serraph105: I think that main reason that people argue against mental screen for guns, is because a large portion of the population (especially in this day and age) have some sort of mental issue, whether small or large. You shouldn't be barred from owning or purchasing a gun because you were depressed for a few months two years ago. That being said, there must be some way to ensure people with heavy mental illnesses and violent tendencies be kept from buying guns. The mental health issue in relation to access to guns is a rather complicated one. People like to simplify it by saying that we should just bar mentally ill people from owning guns, but mental illness covers a wide swath.

@comp_atkins: Gun advocates fight against it because normal citizens shouldn't be required to have some dumb thumb print recognition tech to use their own property. I can see it maybe being put into affect in the case of my teacher solution, but who knows. I don't really think it would even be necessary. The argument seems to be that there would be brawls and shoot outs between teachers and students trying to take their guns, which seems a bit far fetched and silly to me.

@perfect_blue: Well, it's not a joke.

@LJS9502_basic: Security would work too, but I don't agree that teachers shouldn't be armed. The process to turn them into protectors would likely take a while, and security could fill the gap between then.

@LJS9502_basic: I've already stated that I completely disagree that we overspend on military. We don't. And if it was more, it'd be fine with that. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

I agree the government should not be allowed to waste money that isn't theirs, though I don't think spending it on military is a waste, if that is what you're implying. Just get rid of social security, meaning we won't have to pay into it and therefore the money we don't give the government for social security won't be wasted, because we'll still have it. It's projected to run out by 2034, so to our generation (again, assuming you're roughly the same age or younger) won't even benefit from it.

@n64dd: Depends on the type of weapon. Most firearms in the US today (meaning a vast majority) are semi-automatic. Most handguns are semi-automatic. Even revolvers, which are not technically semi-automatic, still effectively work as semi-automatic. A ban of semi-automatics would essentially be a ban on almost all firearms.

Americans like the term gun control, because it sounds sensible (like most Left policies 'sound' sensible), but when it reaches the point of actually making policies and seeing the details in those policies, then the actual policies seem more restrictive of freedoms and self-preservation than the term 'gun control' implies. It's a manipulative tactic, but not that effective in the end since Americans tend to see through it when it matters. Gun control isn't a policy, it's a slogan.

@PraetorianMan: You seem to know very little about guerilla warfare and insurgency tactics. They are very effective. Beyond that, if you honestly think that most of the US Military would follow the UNLAWFUL order to slay their fellow Americans, then you're a fool, and seem to have little faith in the Military. If it came to a war between the People with their apparently 'insignificant' firearms and the US Government, the Military would side with the People and we would eventually decimate the tyrannical government.

@bigfootpart2: Never even heard of the movies, but they look like B grade nonsense... so I might have to check them out.

@Planeforger: I don't really think that would be happening to the degree people seem to be arguing. If these kids would suddenly try to take a teacher's guns simply because the teacher now has a gun, then that implies they're already fucked in the head right now, and are just waiting for a gun to be readily available.

Also. I would argue that school shooters are inherently cowardly. As they target the most vulnerable among us, generally in 'gun-free zones'. You don't see many of these shooters going into cop stations, military bases, or places with a lot of security. They know they'll probably die, but that doesn't mean they want the actual shooting spree to be difficult. Having more armed people on campus (whether it's cops, teachers, or whoever) would deter a lot of them I think.