mnealtx 0 #51 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #52 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? In that topic, then we should not allow teachers (including university professors to skydive or jump!!!!"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #53 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? What are your qualifications in tax accounting? You offer opinions about taxes at every opportunity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #54 February 5, 2008 QuoteYou see, at this school, educating is the responsibility of the teachers and security is the responsibility of the security staff. {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} You seem to be mixing up non related points just because others are trying to tie them together. So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. but first - answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)? Anyway: 1 - the teacher - whether he carries or not, I don't think it's his "responsibility" to protect the school - we agree. That's the discussion others are having, not me. You keep responding to the assumptions that teachers should carry to protect the class - I think that's a nonsense argument that progunners use to boost their egos as the "great protectors". I don't care why they carry - it could be just because they think "the gun is neat". I only care that they own that property and it's their choice to carry, not anyone elses. I'm strictly talking about private property ownership and people trying to curtail that right. If the teacher has a gun and chooses to not use it in a situation and kids get killed due to his inaction? - that's not his job (I might think he's despicable, and I might disagree with his choices, but he's not HIRED to do that, nor should he be - self armed or not). I agree with you there. It's just not pertinent to the discussion. Your "bigger" picture is not bigger, just a completely different topic altogether. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. 2 - The business needs to provide some kind of security. I agree there too. And the fact of whether the teaching staff is carrying or not is not related to that point in any way. So why keep bringing it up? It's your main point. Bad school - fix the security. Bad school or good school or super cool school - the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. Conceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #55 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? What are your qualifications in tax accounting? You offer opinions about taxes at every opportunity. I absolutely offer my opinion about taxes ... I also supply the information to back up why I think my opinion is valid, rather than speaking ex cathedra from my navel.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #56 February 5, 2008 QuoteConceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. It's not simple, because rights sometimes conflict with each other, compelling the task of reconciling them. It's a question of where to draw the line. Example: let's say you were visiting someone in jail. You're a lawful CCW holder. Before you're admitted to the building, you're required to check your gun, and the small pocket knife attached to your keychain, at the gate. Taken to its logical extreme, that arguably could be considered, to some degree, an infringement of your rights. And I suppose it technically is. But in that case, those rights are weighed balance with security considerations. So a strict, uncompromising approach probably isn't always practical. As I said, the real debate is where to draw the line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflydrew 0 #57 February 5, 2008 Quote {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. I love your ability to have a normal discussion full of scarcasm and putting words into someone else's mouth... "fun little forum tricks". well done... that really shows a great deal of maturity,seriously Continuing with this discussion, you wrote: "answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)?" As far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course). I don't get all bent out of shape about that issue. I don't think anyone has the right to carry a weapon into a school unless the school permits it... It should be the decision of the administrators and heads of school whether or not concealed weapons are allowed campuses and who can carry them. I believe the national trend is that only security officers and police officers are allowed to do that, and I'm sure that there are very sensible reasons for this that trump the argument that "the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #58 February 5, 2008 QuoteAs far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course) - {{{caviat-caviat-caviat-tangent - etc}}}}. Well, there you have it, pretty much any reasonable person's post and no different than mine or any others, but refreshingly crisp and normal finally - read your earlier posts, this position was not clear at all. Thanks for playing. comment - Security officers and police carry with the expectations that they have them for the express expectation of protection of others. That's the only difference between them carrying and a private citizen. That difference shouldn't be a defining criteria on personal ownership at all. The definition of that gray line? Andy made a nice pithy note on that and did it well enough and that's where the fun discussions about various caviats are as individual as each of us. really, if you can't enjoy the exchange (and this started with a real simple inference to an earlier post of yours that I referenced and YOU were the one to get bent out of shape on it - so I just played along) you might want to avoid it in the future. I like you just fine. post #7 "Teachers having guns is a stupid idea." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #59 February 5, 2008 "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. " -McCain's campaign websiteIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
juanesky 0 #52 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? In that topic, then we should not allow teachers (including university professors to skydive or jump!!!!"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #53 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? What are your qualifications in tax accounting? You offer opinions about taxes at every opportunity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #54 February 5, 2008 QuoteYou see, at this school, educating is the responsibility of the teachers and security is the responsibility of the security staff. {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} You seem to be mixing up non related points just because others are trying to tie them together. So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. but first - answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)? Anyway: 1 - the teacher - whether he carries or not, I don't think it's his "responsibility" to protect the school - we agree. That's the discussion others are having, not me. You keep responding to the assumptions that teachers should carry to protect the class - I think that's a nonsense argument that progunners use to boost their egos as the "great protectors". I don't care why they carry - it could be just because they think "the gun is neat". I only care that they own that property and it's their choice to carry, not anyone elses. I'm strictly talking about private property ownership and people trying to curtail that right. If the teacher has a gun and chooses to not use it in a situation and kids get killed due to his inaction? - that's not his job (I might think he's despicable, and I might disagree with his choices, but he's not HIRED to do that, nor should he be - self armed or not). I agree with you there. It's just not pertinent to the discussion. Your "bigger" picture is not bigger, just a completely different topic altogether. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. 2 - The business needs to provide some kind of security. I agree there too. And the fact of whether the teaching staff is carrying or not is not related to that point in any way. So why keep bringing it up? It's your main point. Bad school - fix the security. Bad school or good school or super cool school - the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. Conceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #55 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? What are your qualifications in tax accounting? You offer opinions about taxes at every opportunity. I absolutely offer my opinion about taxes ... I also supply the information to back up why I think my opinion is valid, rather than speaking ex cathedra from my navel.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #56 February 5, 2008 QuoteConceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. It's not simple, because rights sometimes conflict with each other, compelling the task of reconciling them. It's a question of where to draw the line. Example: let's say you were visiting someone in jail. You're a lawful CCW holder. Before you're admitted to the building, you're required to check your gun, and the small pocket knife attached to your keychain, at the gate. Taken to its logical extreme, that arguably could be considered, to some degree, an infringement of your rights. And I suppose it technically is. But in that case, those rights are weighed balance with security considerations. So a strict, uncompromising approach probably isn't always practical. As I said, the real debate is where to draw the line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflydrew 0 #57 February 5, 2008 Quote {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. I love your ability to have a normal discussion full of scarcasm and putting words into someone else's mouth... "fun little forum tricks". well done... that really shows a great deal of maturity,seriously Continuing with this discussion, you wrote: "answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)?" As far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course). I don't get all bent out of shape about that issue. I don't think anyone has the right to carry a weapon into a school unless the school permits it... It should be the decision of the administrators and heads of school whether or not concealed weapons are allowed campuses and who can carry them. I believe the national trend is that only security officers and police officers are allowed to do that, and I'm sure that there are very sensible reasons for this that trump the argument that "the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #58 February 5, 2008 QuoteAs far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course) - {{{caviat-caviat-caviat-tangent - etc}}}}. Well, there you have it, pretty much any reasonable person's post and no different than mine or any others, but refreshingly crisp and normal finally - read your earlier posts, this position was not clear at all. Thanks for playing. comment - Security officers and police carry with the expectations that they have them for the express expectation of protection of others. That's the only difference between them carrying and a private citizen. That difference shouldn't be a defining criteria on personal ownership at all. The definition of that gray line? Andy made a nice pithy note on that and did it well enough and that's where the fun discussions about various caviats are as individual as each of us. really, if you can't enjoy the exchange (and this started with a real simple inference to an earlier post of yours that I referenced and YOU were the one to get bent out of shape on it - so I just played along) you might want to avoid it in the future. I like you just fine. post #7 "Teachers having guns is a stupid idea." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #59 February 5, 2008 "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. " -McCain's campaign websiteIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 1,625 #53 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? What are your qualifications in tax accounting? You offer opinions about taxes at every opportunity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #54 February 5, 2008 QuoteYou see, at this school, educating is the responsibility of the teachers and security is the responsibility of the security staff. {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} You seem to be mixing up non related points just because others are trying to tie them together. So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. but first - answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)? Anyway: 1 - the teacher - whether he carries or not, I don't think it's his "responsibility" to protect the school - we agree. That's the discussion others are having, not me. You keep responding to the assumptions that teachers should carry to protect the class - I think that's a nonsense argument that progunners use to boost their egos as the "great protectors". I don't care why they carry - it could be just because they think "the gun is neat". I only care that they own that property and it's their choice to carry, not anyone elses. I'm strictly talking about private property ownership and people trying to curtail that right. If the teacher has a gun and chooses to not use it in a situation and kids get killed due to his inaction? - that's not his job (I might think he's despicable, and I might disagree with his choices, but he's not HIRED to do that, nor should he be - self armed or not). I agree with you there. It's just not pertinent to the discussion. Your "bigger" picture is not bigger, just a completely different topic altogether. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. 2 - The business needs to provide some kind of security. I agree there too. And the fact of whether the teaching staff is carrying or not is not related to that point in any way. So why keep bringing it up? It's your main point. Bad school - fix the security. Bad school or good school or super cool school - the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. Conceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #55 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? What are your qualifications in tax accounting? You offer opinions about taxes at every opportunity. I absolutely offer my opinion about taxes ... I also supply the information to back up why I think my opinion is valid, rather than speaking ex cathedra from my navel.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #56 February 5, 2008 QuoteConceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. It's not simple, because rights sometimes conflict with each other, compelling the task of reconciling them. It's a question of where to draw the line. Example: let's say you were visiting someone in jail. You're a lawful CCW holder. Before you're admitted to the building, you're required to check your gun, and the small pocket knife attached to your keychain, at the gate. Taken to its logical extreme, that arguably could be considered, to some degree, an infringement of your rights. And I suppose it technically is. But in that case, those rights are weighed balance with security considerations. So a strict, uncompromising approach probably isn't always practical. As I said, the real debate is where to draw the line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflydrew 0 #57 February 5, 2008 Quote {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. I love your ability to have a normal discussion full of scarcasm and putting words into someone else's mouth... "fun little forum tricks". well done... that really shows a great deal of maturity,seriously Continuing with this discussion, you wrote: "answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)?" As far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course). I don't get all bent out of shape about that issue. I don't think anyone has the right to carry a weapon into a school unless the school permits it... It should be the decision of the administrators and heads of school whether or not concealed weapons are allowed campuses and who can carry them. I believe the national trend is that only security officers and police officers are allowed to do that, and I'm sure that there are very sensible reasons for this that trump the argument that "the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #58 February 5, 2008 QuoteAs far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course) - {{{caviat-caviat-caviat-tangent - etc}}}}. Well, there you have it, pretty much any reasonable person's post and no different than mine or any others, but refreshingly crisp and normal finally - read your earlier posts, this position was not clear at all. Thanks for playing. comment - Security officers and police carry with the expectations that they have them for the express expectation of protection of others. That's the only difference between them carrying and a private citizen. That difference shouldn't be a defining criteria on personal ownership at all. The definition of that gray line? Andy made a nice pithy note on that and did it well enough and that's where the fun discussions about various caviats are as individual as each of us. really, if you can't enjoy the exchange (and this started with a real simple inference to an earlier post of yours that I referenced and YOU were the one to get bent out of shape on it - so I just played along) you might want to avoid it in the future. I like you just fine. post #7 "Teachers having guns is a stupid idea." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #59 February 5, 2008 "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. " -McCain's campaign websiteIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rehmwa 2 #54 February 5, 2008 QuoteYou see, at this school, educating is the responsibility of the teachers and security is the responsibility of the security staff. {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} You seem to be mixing up non related points just because others are trying to tie them together. So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. but first - answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)? Anyway: 1 - the teacher - whether he carries or not, I don't think it's his "responsibility" to protect the school - we agree. That's the discussion others are having, not me. You keep responding to the assumptions that teachers should carry to protect the class - I think that's a nonsense argument that progunners use to boost their egos as the "great protectors". I don't care why they carry - it could be just because they think "the gun is neat". I only care that they own that property and it's their choice to carry, not anyone elses. I'm strictly talking about private property ownership and people trying to curtail that right. If the teacher has a gun and chooses to not use it in a situation and kids get killed due to his inaction? - that's not his job (I might think he's despicable, and I might disagree with his choices, but he's not HIRED to do that, nor should he be - self armed or not). I agree with you there. It's just not pertinent to the discussion. Your "bigger" picture is not bigger, just a completely different topic altogether. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. 2 - The business needs to provide some kind of security. I agree there too. And the fact of whether the teaching staff is carrying or not is not related to that point in any way. So why keep bringing it up? It's your main point. Bad school - fix the security. Bad school or good school or super cool school - the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. Conceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 February 5, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote ANd what will happen the first time a poorly trained teacher shoots a child by mistake? On the whole it would be better for teachers to get more training in the subjects they teach rather than in close quarter firearms use. This, of course, from your qualifications in the instruction on defensive handgunning? Non sequitur. You should stick to quibbling over the deficit. Not a non-sequitur at all - what are your qualifications in defensive hangunning, that you can say what training teachers need? What are your qualifications in tax accounting? You offer opinions about taxes at every opportunity. I absolutely offer my opinion about taxes ... I also supply the information to back up why I think my opinion is valid, rather than speaking ex cathedra from my navel.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #56 February 5, 2008 QuoteConceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. It's not simple, because rights sometimes conflict with each other, compelling the task of reconciling them. It's a question of where to draw the line. Example: let's say you were visiting someone in jail. You're a lawful CCW holder. Before you're admitted to the building, you're required to check your gun, and the small pocket knife attached to your keychain, at the gate. Taken to its logical extreme, that arguably could be considered, to some degree, an infringement of your rights. And I suppose it technically is. But in that case, those rights are weighed balance with security considerations. So a strict, uncompromising approach probably isn't always practical. As I said, the real debate is where to draw the line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflydrew 0 #57 February 5, 2008 Quote {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. I love your ability to have a normal discussion full of scarcasm and putting words into someone else's mouth... "fun little forum tricks". well done... that really shows a great deal of maturity,seriously Continuing with this discussion, you wrote: "answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)?" As far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course). I don't get all bent out of shape about that issue. I don't think anyone has the right to carry a weapon into a school unless the school permits it... It should be the decision of the administrators and heads of school whether or not concealed weapons are allowed campuses and who can carry them. I believe the national trend is that only security officers and police officers are allowed to do that, and I'm sure that there are very sensible reasons for this that trump the argument that "the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #58 February 5, 2008 QuoteAs far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course) - {{{caviat-caviat-caviat-tangent - etc}}}}. Well, there you have it, pretty much any reasonable person's post and no different than mine or any others, but refreshingly crisp and normal finally - read your earlier posts, this position was not clear at all. Thanks for playing. comment - Security officers and police carry with the expectations that they have them for the express expectation of protection of others. That's the only difference between them carrying and a private citizen. That difference shouldn't be a defining criteria on personal ownership at all. The definition of that gray line? Andy made a nice pithy note on that and did it well enough and that's where the fun discussions about various caviats are as individual as each of us. really, if you can't enjoy the exchange (and this started with a real simple inference to an earlier post of yours that I referenced and YOU were the one to get bent out of shape on it - so I just played along) you might want to avoid it in the future. I like you just fine. post #7 "Teachers having guns is a stupid idea." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #59 February 5, 2008 "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. " -McCain's campaign websiteIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Andy9o8 0 #56 February 5, 2008 QuoteConceal/Carry - is simple. Private property rights, SELF protection. Arguments that extend it beyond that are interesting, but moot. It's not simple, because rights sometimes conflict with each other, compelling the task of reconciling them. It's a question of where to draw the line. Example: let's say you were visiting someone in jail. You're a lawful CCW holder. Before you're admitted to the building, you're required to check your gun, and the small pocket knife attached to your keychain, at the gate. Taken to its logical extreme, that arguably could be considered, to some degree, an infringement of your rights. And I suppose it technically is. But in that case, those rights are weighed balance with security considerations. So a strict, uncompromising approach probably isn't always practical. As I said, the real debate is where to draw the line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #57 February 5, 2008 Quote {deleted teasing jab here - pointless to push your buttons} So I'll clear up my personal points so we can talk without you crying about fun little forum tricks. And I could care less if you and 7 other teachers that "surround you" have a common subjective position about the property rights of the many hundreds of thousands of other teachers in the country that should, by right, be able to choose for themselves. feel better? we agree on your points, they just don't relate to the topic. I actually disagree with the pro-gunners use of "teachers as security" for the exact same reason. I love your ability to have a normal discussion full of scarcasm and putting words into someone else's mouth... "fun little forum tricks". well done... that really shows a great deal of maturity,seriously Continuing with this discussion, you wrote: "answer this clearly - REGARDLESS of whether or not there is a formal security and whether or not teachers would be (unfairly) expected to protect the kids - do you think a teacher should be able to choose whether he carries or not - for his own personal reasons (that might have nothing to do with protecting the class)?" As far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course). I don't get all bent out of shape about that issue. I don't think anyone has the right to carry a weapon into a school unless the school permits it... It should be the decision of the administrators and heads of school whether or not concealed weapons are allowed campuses and who can carry them. I believe the national trend is that only security officers and police officers are allowed to do that, and I'm sure that there are very sensible reasons for this that trump the argument that "the private citizen that happens to be teaching can choose to take his personal property, even a gun, with him if it doesn't affect his ability to do his job" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #58 February 5, 2008 QuoteAs far as I'm concerned, anyone can carry a gun (permitted of course) - {{{caviat-caviat-caviat-tangent - etc}}}}. Well, there you have it, pretty much any reasonable person's post and no different than mine or any others, but refreshingly crisp and normal finally - read your earlier posts, this position was not clear at all. Thanks for playing. comment - Security officers and police carry with the expectations that they have them for the express expectation of protection of others. That's the only difference between them carrying and a private citizen. That difference shouldn't be a defining criteria on personal ownership at all. The definition of that gray line? Andy made a nice pithy note on that and did it well enough and that's where the fun discussions about various caviats are as individual as each of us. really, if you can't enjoy the exchange (and this started with a real simple inference to an earlier post of yours that I referenced and YOU were the one to get bent out of shape on it - so I just played along) you might want to avoid it in the future. I like you just fine. post #7 "Teachers having guns is a stupid idea." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #59 February 5, 2008 "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway. " -McCain's campaign websiteIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
