Posted on 07/25/2005 6:52:04 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Thanks for the response, Dead Corpse. Based on your response, I wonder then were the rights of the parents and teachers, and other adult school visitors infringed upon when they also have to go through a metal detector?
I would assume a jackboot lickspittle would have precise numbers on that. But somehow, I never see such precise numbers.
However, it is safe to say that lives would have been spared had anyone at Columbine been carrying concealed. And without unconstitutional searches.
Yes, the Founders really were a LOT smarter than today's gun-grabbing JBTs.
Define Unreasonable, in the age of Terrorism.
Do you teach your children to submit to police requests to search bags? Would you send them to war to defend such watered down "freedom lite?"
I'm all for lifting the idiot prohibitions on law abiding adults carrying firearms in our schools for their own protection and that of the students.
"I'm all for lifting the idiot prohibitions on law abiding adults carrying firearms in our schools for their own protection and that of the students."
I agree to a certain extent. I would not trust some parents who are perceived as being "law abiding adults" to carry firearms into a school. I know too many parents and other adults who fit that description but are also seriously irresponsible as well.
I think a responsible school employee who has been properly trained in gun handling and gun safety can be an asset to the school's security if they are allowed to have access to a firearm. That firearm being in a safe place that students cannot, ever, have access to.
"Responsible School Employee" is an oxymoron. Especially in light of recent lawsuits and Zero Tolerance policies that removes any such "responsibleness" from said employee.
Also, start teaching firearms safety in 3rd grade. Isolating the kids is only going to make them curious. Teach 'em right, and start 'em young. My two year old daughter already has her first squirt and cap guns. The basics of "don't point at anything you don't want to shoot" and good hand position are already being covered.
BS. I don't trust YOU either. One thing we agree on is that the public school system is chronically ill. However, that being said, I also personally know a few teachers that ARE excellent, and ARE trustworthy, and are blessed with commonsense that is lacking in so many other educators. Your assumption that all school employees are equal in their lack of commonsense and personal responsibility is such an irrational assumption that it negates most of your other arguments.
I for one am a fan of homeschooling. I am also one of three daughters and our father taught us at a very young age all about gun safety and how to shoot guns. We're hunters and firm believers in our right to bear arms. You are wise to teach your children the same thing.
Which proves you didn't read what I wrote. Thanks for playing though. My statement was an indictment of school bureaucracy and trusting said bureaucracy to decide who is "capable" of meeting whatever screwed up criteria they might dream up.
Also, you trust whoever you want. I guaranty our criteria for who is "trustworthy" are very, very different. I would rather err on the side of caution on that one and just arm everyone. Even cops commit crimes every now and then. You need as many people to help "watch the watchers" as possible.
I'm a fan of homeschooling as well, however I'm not sure that we'll be able to home school our daughter. Not enough hours in the day. I'll sell a kidney if I have to to put her through a good private school though. No public skewlz.
""Responsible School Employee" is an oxymoron."
It was that statement that brought about my reply about "your assumption that all school employees are equal in their lack of commonsense".
I do understand how you wouldn't trust the public school bureaucracy to decide who is "capable" of meeting their criteria for who could carry a weapon. But if you wouldn't trust any school employee based on how they would be chosen, then why would you choose for any of them, or all of them, to carry a weapon?
You said you would err on the side of caution and just arm everyone. "Everyone" would include psychos, sociopaths, and child molestors, so how is THAT erring on the "side of caution"? I just can't twist my logic quite that far. LOL
I hope you can find a good, private school to send your daughter too. Hopefully, without having to sell a kidney. Do you know any homeschool families? Perhaps there is a homeschooling family (that you know and trust) that would be willing to teach your daughter along with their own children? Just a thought, and you could offer to compensate them for their efforts. I wouldn't have minded taking on another child when I was homeschooling our sons. :)
There have been routine searches of bags in airports for over thirty years, people entering most government buildings are also subject to search. As long as it is posted that any person or their belongings are subject to search, it is perfectly valid. People who have something to hide need not enter. Nobody is forced to use any form of public transportation, there is nothing "unreasonable" about conducting random searches of the people who do. If someone has illegal drugs or something else that is illegal but unrelated to terrorism, they have always been subject to prosecution if it is discovered in an airport or someplace else. The reason given in the early 1970s for searches in airports was the threat of skyjacking; however, people have been arrested and prosecuted for plenty of other things.
This is a non-issue, the ACLU knows it. The ACLU is concerned that racial profiling will be used to determine who to search at random. What the ACLU doesn't understand is that many (probably most) Americans are supportive of racial profiling when it comes to fighting terrorism. We know what terrorists generally look like, these are the people we should target.
What you are saying is false. Compelling random searches of individuals using public transportation is illegal, and therefore it is only voluntary.
The government has been using the Constitution for asswipe since the New Deal. Citing a bad precedent from the 70's means nothing. John Gilmore has only recently started a legal challenge to having to produce ID to pursue an entirely legal activity, without being in any way suspicious. Let's see if that document still means anything. If not, who cares?
Please show me where random searching is illegal if it can be "reasonably" established that doing so can reduce the threat of terror. Are you saying that airport security has been unconstitutional for over 30 years? NOBODY is required to use public transportation.
Thanks for your sensible post. I wonder if people get it. Terrorists are among us and are determined to reek as much death as they can.
Much of the federal government has been acting outside constitutional authority since FDR packed the court. Google up "Constitution in exile." In light of that massive illegality, why would a little illegal bag searching surprise anyone?
It seems that you are operating under some libertarian notion that any search is "unreasonable" and this is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, IMHO.
Firearms are an equalizer. They tend to keep everyone on their toes, including the bad guys, when everyone is carrying. "An armed society is a polite society" is more than just a snarky bit of caution. It's reality. Being "gifted" by an administrator isn't the same as exercising an individual Right. Nor is the attitude of said "gifted" person the same. I would trust everyone over a select few as there is a certain safety in numbers.
Psychopaths, child molestors, and outright homocidal maniacs will arm themselves with any number of weapons, improvised or otherwise. All your gun restrictions do is make their enviroment easier to work in. Also, if some of those people are that dangerous, why aren't they in jail or in the looney bin? After all, aren't there laws against murder and molesting children already? How would making guns harder to get for EVERYONE restrict the criminals in any shape or form? Your "logic" appears to be non-existant at this point.
Re: home schooling. Yeah, there are several central Texas groups that offer support and training for parents who want to home school. We are also looking at some of the better private schools. We'll see how all that shakes out in a couple years though...
Ah yes, here we go with the "libertarian" thing. How much money have you raised for the Republican Party? Which Republican governor's fundraiser have to attended in the past year? Now google up "Constituion in Exile" and "John Roberts" and see what kind of "fringe whackos" believe in restoring the Founders' vision. Yeah, the one Bill Clinton called "extreme."
I have never said I wanted more restrictions on guns nor wanted to make them harder to get for "everyone". Seems to me, in spite of what I have posted to you about my being a firm believer in the "right to bear arms", and the fact that I am a gun owner, etc., you're trying to insinuate that I am against those things. Talk about not reading what I wrote. LOL
Of course I wish the bad guys and gals didn't have guns, but I'm not willing to ban all guns to accomplish that. The bad guys and gals will ALWAYS find a gun if they want one bad enough. That's why the anti-gun crowd are a bunch of idiots.
Have a nice day. :)
The key word is "unreasonable".
When there are people taking explosives onto public transportation it is not "unreasonable" to make random searches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.